
    Roney v. Moss.
    
      Statutory Action in nature of Ejectment.
    
    1. Certificate of acknowledgment. — A certificate of acknowledgment, ■which does not state that the grantors were informed of the contents of the conveyance (Code, § 2158), is substantially defective.
    2. Proof of recorded deed. — When a conveyance has been admitted to record on a certificate of acknowledgment which is substantially defective (Code, § 2154), it is not admissible as evidence without other proof of its execution.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Iienry.
    Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hurraed.
    This action was brought by James Moss, against John E. Honey, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land, particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 5th August, 1880. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, the plaintiff claimed title to the land under a patent from the United States, which was produced and admitted as evidence, and proved his possession under said patent; while the defendant was in possession under a purchase and conveyance from W. S. Oates, who claimed under a mortgage, or instrument purporting to be a mortgage, executed by said Moss and wife, which was dated January 16th, 1877, signed by said Moss and wife by mark only, without any attesting witness, and admitted 'to record on the 17th January, 1877, on a certificate of acknowledgment in these words; “1, J. J. Head, N. P. and ex officio J. P. in said county, hereby certify, that J. and Serena Moss, whose names are signed to the foregoing conveyance, and who are known to me, executed the same voluntarily, before me, on the day the same bears date. Given under my hand,” &c. The defendant offered this mortgage in evidence, “as a link in the chain of his title,” but the court excluded it, on objection by the plaintiff, “ because the certificate of acknowledgment is not in substantial compliance with the statute;” and this ruling of the court, to which an exception was reserved by the defendant, is here assigned as error.
    Oates & Cowan, for appellant,
    cited Kelly v. Galhoun, 5 Otto, 710 ; Broom’s Legal Maxims, 348 ; Williams v. McGonico, 26 Ala. 213.
    
      Watts & Son, and J. A. Clendenin, contra,
    cited Goodlett v. Ilansell, 56 Ala. 346; Roney v. Moss, 74 Ala. 390.
   Per Curiam.

— The certificate to the mortgage offered in evidence does not substantially conform to the requirements of the statute.' — Code of 1876, § 2158. A noteworthy omission in the certificate is, that it fails to aver the grantors were informed of the contents of the conveyance, not to notice other imperfections. — Code, § 2145. To justify the reception of the paper in evidence, there should have been other proof of its execution.' — Bickley v. Keenan, 60 Ala. 293; Hendon v. White, 52 Ala. 597; Sharpe v. Orme, 61 Ala. 263; Rogers v. Adams, 66 Ala. 600.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.  