{
  "id": 1896179,
  "name": "Mickel v. Gardner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mickel v. Gardner",
  "decision_date": "1883-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "491",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ark. 491"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark., 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 4976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "2e2106f8cdc982ab9e1b1f5e02a4d180b9fbf90533637e216f8ff1a8acdb55e7",
    "simhash": "1:9ee744622486bb37",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:33.230898+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mickel v. Gardner."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eakin, J.\nThis is an appeal from a decree in chancery,. foreclosing a mortgage executed by Mickel and wife of lands partly her own and partly her husband\u2019s. The sole defense relied on here was in the supposed defectiveness of' her acknowledgment of the deed.\nIt was in all respects a carefully drawn certificate, showing that the required privy examination had been made, and. that she had acknowledged her voluntary execution of it,, without compulsion, etc. It fails to state, however, that-\u25a0she \u201cvoluntarily\u201d appeared before the officer.\nThe statute prescribes that the conveyance of a married -woman\u2019s real estate shall be effected by her \u201cvoluntarily\u201d -appearing before the proper court or officer, and in the absence of her husband declaring that she had of her own free will executed the deed, etc., for the purposes therein \u2022contained and set forth 4 4 without compulsion or undue influence of her husband. \u201d Gantt\u2019s Dig., sec. 849. It is further prescribed that the officer taking the acknowledgment \u201c shall grant a certificate thereof\u201d to be endorsed \u2022on the instrument.\nThe appearance is no part of the acknowledgment, and need only be recited to show that the woman was there to make the acknowledgment. The doing of that is the essential thing to be certified, and the manner of it and terms of it. The appearance must, in fact, be voluntary, and, unless as against innocent parties, a forced appearance with a valid acknowledgment would convey nothing. But the officer is not required by the statute to make inquisition of the modes by which she is induced to come. Certainly any officer who should see a woman come before him, impelled by force \u2022or fear, should refuse his certificate of acknowledgment, although she might say with her lips that it was voluntary. But he cannot, generally, know that she comes voluntarily, whatever the appearances may be, and his certificate that \u25a0she so came is generally formal \u2014 certainly not essential.\nI know of no case directly in point, and counsel cite none. The principle, however, is illustrated in the case of Stephens v. Henry, 6 Blackford, Indiana Reports, 475. That case arose under a statute requiring an officer taking an acknowledgment of a married woman to examine her separately and to read or otherwise make known to her the contents of the instrument. He was required to certify the acknowledgment which she then made under his hand and seal.\nThe officer\u2019s certificate in that case set forth the privy-examination, and that she acknowledged the instrument apart from her husband to be her voluntary act and deed,, but failed to show that the officer read it to her or made known its contents.\nThe court said it was the officer\u2019s duty to read it to her or make known its contents, but that the statute did not require him to certify that he had done so, or to show anything more on the subject than the declaration or acknowledgment of the wife that she had voluntarily executed the deed.\nWhilst our statute requires the certificate to show the acknowledgment, in the prescribed or equivalent terms, and that it was separate from the husband, it does not, in terms- or by grammatical construction, require it to show that she-voluntarily came.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eakin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Collins & Balch, for appellants.",
      "Duval & Cravens, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mickel v. Gardner.\nAcknowledgment oe Deed: Married Woman\u2019s: Voluntary appe rance.\nThe appearance of a married woman before an officer to acknowledge the execution of a deed must be voluntary, or the acknowledgment willbe invalid except as against innocent parties. But it is not essential that the officer's certificate show that she comes voluntarily. The statute requires a eercifieate only of her acknowledgment.\nAPPEAL from Sebastian circuit court.\n\u25a0Hon. R. T. Powell, Special Judge.\nCollins & Balch, for appellants.\nThe legislature has seen fit to require that the officer-taking a married woman\u2019s acknowledgment shall certify that the appearance of the wife is \u201cvoluntary,\u201d and if the-, statute was \u201c ever so technical and rigorous, \u201d it is the plain letter of the law. It would hardly be doing justice to the-makers of this law to assume that this provision is meaningless, orwas mere matterof form. \u2014 Ford v. Buries, 37 Arle., 91.\nAs to her appearance he must certify that it was voluntary from evidence satisfactory to him ; as to the execution he is governed by her statements.\nDuval & Cravens, contra.\nThe certificate contains all that is requisite \u2014 sufficient to convince the most incredulous that her appearance was voluntary. It recites her appearance, the privy examination and her declaration that she had of her own free will executed, etc., etc., without compulsion or undue influence, etc. This is a substantial compliance with the law, and sufficient. 26' Arle., 130; 32 lb., 453; 20 lb., 194.\nThe burden is on the party seeking to invalidate a deed to show a noncompliance with the law. \u2014 38 Ark., 383;-37 lb., 148; see also Bishop on Married Women, secs.. 590 \u2014 2, and notes.\nBut if defective, it is cured by Act of March 14, 1883."
  },
  "file_name": "0491-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 490
}