(7 N. E. Rep. 326), and cases cited; Mc Cormick v. Malin, 5 Blackf. 509; Ashmead v. Reynolds, 134 Ind. 139 (33 N. E. Rep. 763) and cases cited; Id. 39 Am. St. Rep. 238, and note on page 244; Stumph v. Miller, 142 Ind. 442 (41 N. E. Rep. 812); Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 125; Harding v. Wheaton, 2 Mason 378 (Fed. Cas. No. 6,051); Parker v. Parker, 45 N. J. Eq. 224 (16 Atl. Rep. 537); Giles v. Hodge, 74 Wis. 360 (43 N. W. Rep. 163); Hemphill v. Holford, 88 Mich. 293 (50 N. W. Rep. 300); Cowce v. Cornell, 75 N. Y. 99 (31 Am. Rep. 428); Green v. Roworth, 113 N. Y. 462 (21 N. E. Rep. 165); Barnard v. Gantz, 140 N. Y. 249 (35 N. E. Rep. 430); 1 Story, Eq. Jur., § 239; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. Eq. 1206-1210, 1230-1250; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 947; 27 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 453-459, 461, 489.

Sec. 160. Quitclaim deeds-Bona fide purchaserPrior equities. Applying 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat., p. 756, § 1, providing that, every conveyance of real estate not properly recorded shall be void against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance should be first duly recorded, it is held that the holder of a quitclaim deed, properly recorded, who purchased in good faith, and without notice of a prior unrecorded conveyance, takes the title, in preference to the grantee under such unrecorded conveyance. Wilhelm v. Wilken, 149 N. Y. 447 (44 N. E. Rep. 82; 52 Am. St. Rep. 743; 32 L. R. A. 370). The same rule prevails in the state of Nebraska which has a similar statute (See Vol. 2, Ballards' Law Real Prop., § 588). Schott v. Dosh, 49 Neb. 187 (68 N. W. Rep. 346; 59 Am. St. Rep. 531). Both of these cases elaborately review and discuss authorities upon this subject. In Maine the grantee in a

quitclaim deed may be a bona fide purchaser, Bradley v. Merrill, 88 Me. 319 (34 Atl. Rep. 160); and in the recent case of Smith v. McClain, 146 Ind. 77 (45 N. E. Rep. 41), the supreme court of Indiana say: "While there is some conflict in the authorities upon this question, we think the correct doctrine under the recording acts is that one may become a bona fide purchaser under a quitclaim deed, the same as under any other form of conveyance. Hastings v. Brooker, 90 Ind. 158; Dow v. Whitney, 147 Mass. 1 (16 N. E. Rep.

722); Chapman v. Sims, 53 Miss. 154; Willingham v. Hardin, 75 Mo. 429; Fox v. Hall, 74 Mo. 315 (41 Am. Rep. 316). Graff v. Middleton, 43 Cal. 341; Frey v. Clifford, 44 Cal. 335; Hamilton v. Doolittle, 37 Ill. 473; Brown v. Oil Co., 97 Ill. 214; Mc Connel v. Reed, 4 Scam. 117; 2 Jones, Real Prop. & Conv., §§ 1394-1396, and cases cited in notes." A grantee in a quitclaim deed takes it subject to such outstanding equitics and interests as he might have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Ferguson v. Tarbox, 3 Kan. App. 656 (44 Pac. Rep. 905). In the absence of limitations a quitclaim deed conveys all the existing interest of the grantor. Smith v. McClain, 146 Ind. 77 (45 N. E. Rep. 41). A quitclaim by one whose property has been confiscated under the act of congress of July 17, 1862, and the joint resolution of the same date, conveys no estate, and is not validated by a subsequent removal of the grantor's disability. Menger v. Carruthers, 3 Kan. App. 75 (44 Pac. Rep. 1096). See Estates.

Sec. 161.

Miscellaneous Notes. A void deed may be ratified by receipt of the purchase money. Jourdan v. Dean, 175 Pa. St. 599 (34 Atl. Rep. 958). The conveyance of real estate is governed by the law of the state in which it is situated. Shattuck v. Bates, 92 Wis. 633 (66 N. W. Rep. 703). A statute validating defective conveyances cannot affect the rights of third parties acquired before its passage. Shattuck v. Byford, 62 Ark. 431 (35 S. W. Rep. 1107). Where a deed executed to an infant conveying a beneficial interest is recorded he will presumed to have accepted it. Bjmcrland v. Eley, 15 Wash. 101 (45 Pac. Rep. 730). A deed of land operates as an assignment to the grantee of all rights of action or defenses, growing out of such title and ownership of said land which theretofore belonged to the grantor. Fink v. Henderson, 74 Miss. 8 (19 So. Rep. 892). A deed of conveyance executed by a man to a woman with whom he lives as his wife and who believes herself to be such may be sustained as against an attack by the lawful wife of the grantor, to the extent that the grantee can show a consideration therefor in the way of services rendered and money advanced by her to

the grantor. Hughes v. Doe, 114 Cal. 199 (45 Pac. Rep. 1066).

FORM OF DEEDS.

[In Vol. I, SS 57–105; Vol. II, §§ 133–147; Vol. III, §§ 181–197; Vol. IV, S$ 156-168, will be found a compilation of the statutory forms of deeds and acknowledgments for the several states and territories. Below we give such amendments, changes and additional constructions as have been made.]

Sec. 162. Alabama. (See Vol. I, § 57; Vol. II, § 133; Vol. III, $181.) Particular acknowledgment held insufficient. Davidson v. Alabama Iron & Steel Co. 190 Ala. 383 (19 So. Rep. 390).

Sec. 163. Arkansas. (See Vol. I, § 59; Vol. II, § 134; Vol. III, § 182; Vol. IV, § 156.) Acknowledgments taken out of the United States may be taken by the United States Consul and all acknowledgments so taken heretofore are legalized. Acts 1897 (Regular Session), p. 33. For Act validating instruments acknowledged before county judges see Acts 1897 (Special Session), p. 58.

Sec. 164. California. (See Vol. I, § 60; Vol. II, § 135; Vol III, § 183; Vol. IV, § 157.) The legislature of 1897 enacted the Torrens. system of land transfers. See Stat. 1897, pp. 138-166. Section 53 of this act provides that "Like forms of deeds, mortgages, leases, and other instruments as are now or may hereafter be sufficient in law for the purpose intended, may be used in dealing with registered land and any estate or interest therein. Such instruments shall give the number of the certificate of title of the land described therein. But an indorsement, duly acknowledged, upon the duplicate certificate of title, substantially in the following form, viz.: 'I .............. grant to

the real property described in this certificate. Witness and seal ......

hand...

day of

this

..,' shall be sufficient to trans

fer the property in said certificate described."

Sec. 165. Connecticut. (See Vol. I, § 62; Vol. IV, § 158.) For statute validating conveyances executed out of the state to the cer tificates of acknowledgments of which the officer failed to affix his offi cial seal or designate his official character, see Pub. Acts 1897, p. 961.

Sec. 166. Delaware. (See Vol. I, § 64.) For statute validating conveyances acknowledged before a consular agent prior to Jan. 1st 1897, see Laws of Del., Vol. 20, p. 695.

Sec. 167. Illinois. (See Vol. I, § 68; Vol. IV, § 160.) Illinois has adopted the Torrens system of land transfers. See Laws 1897, pp. 189-165. Section 52 of this act provides that "Like forms of deeds,

mortgages, leases, or other instruments as are now or may hereafter be sufficient in law for the purpose intended, may be used in dealing with registered land and any estate or interest therein."

Sec. 168. lowa. (See Vol. I, § 70; Vol. II, § 138; Vol. III, § 187.) For statute validating acknowledgments of conveyances of corporations taken by notary public who was a stockholder or officer in such corporation, see Laws 1897, p. 31. Where an acknowledgment is taken out of the state by a notary public his certificate need not be accompanied with a certificate showing his official character. Code, 1897, § 2943, as amended by laws 1898, p. 54.

Sec. 169. Louisiana. (See Vol. I, § 73.)

Acknowledg

ments of deeds executed out of the state may be taken by a notary public and when certified under his hand and seal are sufficient without further proof of his official character. Laws, 1896, p. 219.

Sec. 170. Massachusetts. (See Vol. I, § 76.) Identically the same law adopted by the state of Michigan as set out in Vol. IV, § 161, has been passed by the legislature of Massachusetts, except the last three lines in § 4. Acts, 1894, p. 243, ch. 253. Laws, 1895, ch. 460, p. 518, expressly provides that the act of 1894, ch. 253, does not "prevent the acknowledgments of conveyances and other written instruments in the form and manner lawfully used before the passage of said act."

Sec. 171. Minnesota. (See Vol. I, § 78; Vol. IV, § 162.) Deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney and other instruments "heretofore executed without a seal, scroll or devise, opposite the name of the grantor" are legalized. Gen. Laws, 1897, p. 351. For act legalizing deeds of corporations in which the individual names of the officers executing appear instead of the name of the corporation, see Gen. Laws, 1897, p. 450. For amendment of statute as to the execution and acknowledgment of deeds in foreign countries, see Pub. Laws, 1897, p. 276.

Sec. 172. Nebraska. (See Vol. I, § 82; Vol. II, § 140; Vol. III, § 193.) Construing and applying Neb. Comp. Stat., ch. 73, § 1, which provides that deeds of real estate, "if executed in this state must be signed by the grantor or grantors being of lawful age, in the presence of at least one competent witness who shall subscribe his or her name as a witness thereto," it is held that while it is customary to make use of the expression "Witness" or "Witnessed" in attesting the execution of deeds and other instruments affecting the title to real estate, such practice is neither necessary nor universal, and any recital from which it appears that the subscriber witnessed the execution of the deed by the grantor named, is sufficient. Link v. Connell, 48 Neb. 574 (67 N.W. Rep. 475). Under this statute deeds executed in the state are required to be witnessed, but deeds executed out of the state are sufficient if executed according to the law of the state where executed. Schields v. Horbach, 49 Neb. 262 (68 N. W. Rep. 524).

Sec. 173. New Jersey. (See Vol. I, § 85; Vol. IV, § 163.) Deeds heretofore executed without seal of grantor are valid, "provided that the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of said deed shall recite that the same was sealed by such grantor or grantors." Laws, 1897, p. 174, approved April 8th, 1897.

Sec. 174. North Dakota. (See Vol. IV, § 165.) The provisions of the Revised Codes, 1895, as to the form of deeds, form of acknowledgments and officer before whom acknowledgment may be taken out of the state are the same as those given for Dakota in Vol. I, § 63. Revised Code, 1895, §§ 3537, 3584, 3575. "The certificate of acknowledgment of an instrument executed by a corporation must be substantially in the following form:

State of....... .County of....

On this..............day of..

SS.:

.in the year.......

before me (here insert the name and quality of the officer) personally appeared............. .....known to me (or proved to me on the oath of .) to be the president (or the secretary) of the corporation that is described in and that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same." Rev. Codes, 1895, § 3584.

Sec. 175. Ohio, (See Vol. I, § 90.) The Torrens system of land transfers enacted by Laws 1896, pp. 220-262, and declared unconstitutional in State v. Guilbert, 56 O. St. 575 (47 N. E. Rep. 551; 60 Am. St. Rep. 756), contained the following provisions: "When any owner of land registered under this act, desires to transfer his title to the whole or a part thereof, such owner must endorse on, or attach, such transfer to the certificate evidencing the title of such transfer in the following form:

I, the within named A. B. (if married, say 'assisted by my wife, C. D., or husband, E. F.,') in consideration of ........................................dollars, paid and secured to be paid to me by G. H., do hereby transfer to the said G. H., all of the land described in the within certificate of title. (If part, describe accurately the part transferred.) Subject to such liens, mortgages charges, encumbrances and estates as are noted in the register at this date. And I hereby surrender to said G. H. the within certificate of title No....... and request the county recorder to issue to said G. H. a certificate of title to said land subject to the said liens and charges aforesaid. Dated this............day of... .A. D. 189....

.... County ss.

The state of Ohio... Before me, the undersigned, a in and for said county, on the .............. day of A. D. 189. ., personally came (A. B.) and (C. D.) husband and wife personally known to me to be the identical persons named in the within certificate of title, and the persons who signed the above transfer, and acknowledged the signing thereof to be their volnutary act and