erly signed,1 and so, where the name of the grantee is not inserted in the instrument.2

$147. Description of the Property.

The record of an instrument will not impart notice, unless it contains a sufficient description of the property conveyed or affected. In determining what will constitute a sufficient description, both the character of the instrument and of the property are to be taken into consideration. In a power of attorney, for instance, the description may be in very general terms. The record of deed or mortgage is ineffectual unless it contains an appropriate description of the property attempted to be conveyed.3 Where there is no uncertainty on the face of the instrument, but, through mistake, a different property is described from that intended to be conveyed, the record is notice of a conveyance or incumbrance only of the property mentioned. But where an imperfect or erroneous description is given in such manner as to reasonably put one on an inquiry as to the property intended to

1 Shepherd v. Burkhalter, 13 Ga. 443; s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 523. Where the record showed no corporate seal to the instrument, it was presumed there was none, although there was some evidence tending to show it had been attached. Todd v. Union Dime Sav. Inst., 20 Abb. N. Cas. 270. If the corporate seal appears, evidence of the officer who usually attaches it, that he has no recollection of doing so, in unavailing. Parker v. Washoe Mfng. Co., 49 N. J. L. 465; s. c. 9 Atl. Repr. 682; 8 Cent. Repr. 343.

2 Disque v. Wright, 49 Iowa, 538, citing Chauncey v. Arnold, 24 N. Y. 330. A palpable mistake in filling blanks, whereby the name of the mortgagor is written for that of the mortgagee, and vice versa, will not prevent the record from being notice of the mistake to subsequent purchasers from the mortgagor. Beaver v. Slanker, 94 Ill. 175; 1 Jones on Mort., §530.

3 Warren v. Syme, 7 W. Va. 474; Eggleston v. Watson, 53 Miss. 339; Wright v. Lancaster, 48 Tex. 250; Bank v. Ammon, 27 Pa. St. 172; Mundy v. Vawter, 3 Gratt. 518; Nelson v. Wade, 31 Iowa, 49; Murphy v. Hendricks, 57 Ind. 593; Porter v. Byne, 10 Ind. 146; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 305; Chamberlain v. Bell, 7 Cal. 292; s. c. 68 Am. Dec. 260; Holloway v. Platner, 20 Iowa, 121; s. c. 89 Am. Dec. 517; Adams v. Edgerton, 48 Ark. 419; 3 S. W. Repr. 628; Green v. Witherspoon, 37 La. Ann. 751.

4 Sanger v. Craigue. 10 Vt. 555; Lally v. Holland, 1 Swan, 396; Thorp v. Merrill, 21 Minn. 336.

[$148. be conveyed that would lead to a correct knowledge of the matter, the record will charge notice. So, where there is in a recorded instrument a reference to some other matter of record by which a defective description will be aided and made certain, the record will impart notice. The application of these rules depends largely on the facts of the individual cases, and there is a noticeable lack of harmony in the decision of cases of this kind. This matter will be considered more in detail hereafter in treating of the effect of registry.*

$148. Recording Officers.

The registration of a conveyance is a purely ministerial act, and an officer is not disqualified from recording a deed

1 Carter v. Hawkins, 62 Tex. 393; Anderson v. Baughman, 7 Mich. 69; Nye v. Moody, 70 Tex. 434; Partridge v. Smith, 2 Biss. 183; Thornhill v. Burthe, 29 La. Ann. 639; Roberts v. Bauer, 35 La. Ann. 453; Tousley v. Tousley, 5 O. St. 78; Erickson v. Rafferty, 79 Ill. 209; Merrick v. Wallace, 19 Ill. 486, 498; Dargin v. Becker, 10 Iowa, 571. "The east half of lot 20 in G., it being the west half of said lot 20," is such a description as serves to put on inquiry. Carter v. Hawkins, supra; and see Thornhill v. Burthe, 29 La. Ann. 639.

Actual notice of the mistake renders the error in the record immaterial. Bent v. Coleman, 89 III. 364; s. c. 7 Am. Rep. 366; Warburton v. Lauman, 2 Greene, 420.

2 Wallace v. Furber, 62 Ind. 103; Newman v. Tymeson, 13 Wis. 172; s. c. 80 Am. Dec. 735. Where a deed referred to a recorded contract of sale under which it was made, and that contract referred to another one not recorded, it was held that a subsequent purchaser was bound by the terms of those contracts. Cent. Investment Co. v. Wabash, 29 Fed. Repr. 546. And see Gibert v. Peteler, 38 N. Y. 165; s. c. 97 Am. Dec. 785.

3 Where "lot one in block six," was described in a deed as "lot and six," it was held that a subsequent purchaser under judicial sale against the grantor was entitled to priority over the grantee in the deed, unless at the time of his purchase he had such notice as would put a prudent man on inquiry. Nelson v. Wade, 21 Iowa. 49.

In Connecticut it has been held that a mortgage of real estate requires a more certain and definite description of the property than a - deed; and a general designation of all other lands owned by the mortgagors in a certain township, with reference to the county records for description, has been adjudged insufficient. Herman v. Deming, 44 Conn. 124, cited at length in 1 Dev. on Deeds, §654.

Post, §§178-183.

because he is a party to it, unless the statute so provides.1 It is sufficient that a deed is deposited for record with a person who is in actual charge and custody of the office, whether he be a regular deputy or not, as the recorder is responsible for the acts of one thus permitted to have control of the office and records. Where the clerk is required to keep a record of acknowledgments, his failure to enter a certificate thereon is immaterial where the instrument is duly recorded.3 The certificate of the recorder is in some states held conclusive evidence that the instrument to which it is attached has been properly recorded. A recorder of mortgages giving a certificate that the records are clear, is responsible on his bond for the amount of a mortgage made on the faith of the certificate, and lost because of a prior recorded mortgage."

$149. Schedules, Memoranda, etc,

Schedules annexed to a deed of trust and referred to therein, must be registered with it. Where a memorandum

1 Brockenborough v. Melton, 55 Tex. (La.), 411.

493; Tessier v. Hall. 7 Mart.

2 Cook v. Hall, 6 Ill. (1 Gilm.), 575. A clerk in the store of the town clerk, and in charge of the town clerk's office may, in the officer's absence, receive and file a mortgage. Dodge v. Potter, 18 Barb. 193; and so of a person in charge of the recorder's office during a vacancy. Bishop v. Cook, 13 Barb. 326. Where a person made an entry on the books of the entry taker (of public lands), and in his presence, but without his authority, it was held void, and not constructive notice to subsequent parties. Pearson v. Powell, 100 N. C. 86, citing Maxwell v. › Wallace, 3 Ired. Eq. 593.

Mo. 242.

3 Scruggs v. Scruggs, 41 taken by justices in Illinois. Miner, 50 Ill. 444; Porter v. 4 Jacobs v. Denison, 141 Mass. 117; Anthony v. Butler, 13 Pet. 423; post, $272; contra, Johnson v. Burden, 40 Vt. 567; s. c. 94 Am. Dec. 436.

Aliter as to acknowledgments Koplin v. Anderson, Ss Ill. 120; Frank v. Dement, 35 Ill. 478.

Fox v. Thibault, 33 La. Ann. 32. So, a notary and the sureties on his bond held liable for loss, because of a false certificate to a mortgage which proved to be a forgery. People v. Butler (Mich.), 42 N. W. Repr. 243. A certified copy by a notary of a deed acknowledged before him is not valid. Sparr v. Trimble, 1 Marsh. 279. Otherwise as to copies of notarial and public acts of sale under the Mexican civil law. Titus v. Kimbro, 8 Tex. 210.

6 Sawyer v. Pennell, 19 Me. 167; McKinnon v. McLean, 2 Dev. & Bat. 79. A schedule merely referred to in a mortgage, but not annexed to

is indorsed on a deed, but not referred to in it, the memorandum must be acknowledged, and without this its record with the deed is ineffectual.1

$150. Manner of Record.

Marginal notes of a recorder to the record of a deed cannot affect its validity, and are not proof." Where the deed has been recorded in another county, it is not necessary that the clerk should copy the certificate of such prior record. Unless the statute require it, the record need not be signed by the officer in order that a copy of the deed may be admissible in evidence. The record is not vitiated by an omission to copy the official seal to the certificate of acknowledgment, or to indicate in some way that there was a it, or made part of it, need not be recorded. Chapin v. Cram, 40 Me. 561. That the field-notes of a deed were attached to it after its record, held not to lessen its effect as a recorded instrument. Nye v. Moody, 70 Tex. 434; s. c. 8 S. W. Repr. 606.

1 The memorandum was indorsed underneath the certificate of acknowledgment, and the lower court instructed the jury that if it was there at the time of the execution of the deed, it was legally recorded. This was held error. Kerns v. Swope, 2 Watts. 75; and to same effect, McKean v. Mitchell, 35 Pa. St. 269; s. c. 78 Am. Dec. 335.

An additional agreement making the right to foreclose a mortgage dependent on a given contingency must be recorded, under Rev. Stats. of Mo.. $693. Munson v. Ensor (Mo.), 7 S. W. Repr. 108.

A map pasted in the record book between its leaves, has been held to be not thereby recorded. Caldwell v. Center, 30 Cal. 539; s. c. 89 Am. Dec. 131. A plat referred to in a deed, but not annexed to or recorded with it, is not notice. Shirras v. Caig. 7 Cranch, 34.

Where new conditions, duly acknowledged, are indorsed on the back of a recorded mortgage, in recording the new conditions, it is not necessary to again record the mortgage, if they so refer to it as to identify it. Choteau v. Thompson, 2 O. St. 114. Reference to a schedule attached to another mortgage recorded in the same office, held sufficient. Newman v. Tymeson, 13 Wis. 172; s. c. 80 Am. Dec. 735; and see Dunham v. Dey, 15 Johns. 555; s. c. 8 Am. Dec. 282.

Doe, lessee of Foster, v. Executors, of Dugan, 8 Ohio, 87; s. c. 31 Am. Dec. 432; Farmer's Bank v. Bronson, 14 Mich. 363.

3 Stinnett v. House, 1 Tex. Un. Cas. 484. Clerical errors in transcribing do not vitiate the record. Gillespie v. Brown, 16 Neb. 457; s. c. 20 N. W. Repr. 632.

4 Wilt v. Cutler, 38 Mich. 189. The record may be partly printed without vitiating. Maxwell v Hartman, 50 Wis. 660.

seal to the original.1 But if there is no recital in the certificate that the seal is attached, and a certified copy be offered in evidence having no indication of a seal thereon, the presumption must necessarily obtain that there was no seal to the original. In the indorsement to be made by the recorder on the instrument, a substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient.3 The clerk may correct mis

takes in the record, as by subsequent interlineations, but such corrections can in no way impair title already acquired, and take effect only from the time when made. An omission to copy part of a mortgage instrument, the part omitted not pertaining directly to the mortgage, does not vitiate the record. A recorder is not liable in damages for recording a forged deed, unless he knew the character of the instrument." Where the statute limits the damages for failure to properly discharge a mortgage to "ten dollars and all damages occasioned by the neglect to so discharge it," exemplary damages resulting from defendant's false declarations as to the mortgage, are not recoverable. The validity of the instrument is not a matter to be determined by the clerk before he will record it.8 Deeds should be recorded without blank spaces left between on the record.s As against the officer's certificate of record on the deed, a witness not in charge of the recording office will not be heard to testify that no such deed was recorded; the testimony of such officer being the best evidence of that fact, if the certificate is not to be regarded as conclusive.9

1 Geary v. City of Kansas, 61 Mo. 378; Sneed v. Ward, 5 Dana, 188; Growning v. Belin, 10 B. Mon. 386; Smith v. Dall, 13 Cal. 510; Jones v. Martin, 16 Cal. 166; Griffin v. Sheffield, 38 Miss. 359; s. c. 77 Am. Dec. 646; Ballard v. Perry, 28 Tex. 347, 364; Addis v. Graham, 88 Mo. 197. 2 Switzer v. Knapps, 10 Iowa, 72; s. C. 74 Am. Dec. 375.

8 Parsons v. Boyd, 20 Ala. 112.

4 Chamberlain v. Bell, 7 Cal. 292; s. c. 68 Am. Dec. 260; Baldwin v. Marshall, 2 Humph. 116; Harrison v. Wade, 3 Cold. 505; Sellers v. Sellers, 98 N. C. 13; s. c. 3 S. E. Repr. 917.

Est. of Prudhomme, 35 La. Ann. 984.

6 Ramsey v. Riley, 13 Ohio, 157.

7 Giffin v. Barr, 60 Vt. 599.

8 Sacerdotte v. Duralde, 1 La. 485.

9 Edwards v. Barwise, 69 Tex. 84; s. c. 6 S. W. Repr. 677; Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619.

By statute in Ohio, a certified copy of a re

236