
    Constantine vs. Van Winkle.
    Though by an ancient usage in the colony of New-York, existing independent of any statute, a feme covert might, in conjunction with her husband, convey her interest in real estate by deed, without resorting to the common law mode of fine and recovery, yet to render tile,deed operative, an acknowledgment of its execution on her part was always essential.
    Accordingly held, in this case, that the deed of a feme covert and her husband, executed in New-Jersey in 1760, which she had never acknowledged in any form, was inoperative as to those claiming under her.
    On error from the superior court of the city of New-York. The action below was ejectment by Van Winkle against Constantine, to recover an undivided share of certain premises in said city, known as lot No. 182, Fulton street. The case came here upon a bill of exceptions taken at the trial, presenting a great number of questions, among which was this: Constantine claimed title through a deed executed in New-Jersey on the 5th of May, 1760, by John Van Winkle and Jane his wife, both of whom died several years before this suit was brought. At the date of this deed the lot in question belonged to the wife in her own right—the husband having no other interest than that of a mere tenant by the curtesy. It did not appear that the deed had ever been acknowledged by the wife in any form; and therefore the plaintiff below, who claimed by descent from her, objected that her interest remained unaffected by it. The court below allowed the objection, and the defendant there excepted.
    
      E. ÍSandford óf S. A. Foote, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      G. Wood, for the defendant in error.
   By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

The deed in question was inoperative and void as to the interest of Jane Van Winkle, for the want of acknowledgment on her part. It is true, that at an early period of our colonial history a usage seems to have grown up, independent of any statute, under which o. feme covert was allowed to convey her real estate, by uniting with her husband in a deed and acknowledging the same, without resorting to the common law mode of fine and recovery. This is manifest both from legislative acts and judicial decisions. (See act of February 16th, 1771, 3 R. S. affix 22, 1st ed.; Jackson, ex dem. Hardenberg, v. Schoonmaker, 2 Johns. Rep. 230, 234; Jackson, ex dem. Woodruff, v. Gilchrist, 15 id. 89, 109 et seq.; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 128, 9 ; 2 Kent's Comm. 150.) But an acknowledgment of execution on the part of the feme, in some form, and before some officer, has always been deemed essential. Here there was none

Judgment affirmed.  