{
  "id": 2617865,
  "name": "George Lickmon, Executor, etc. v. Nathan Harding",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lickmon v. Harding",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "506",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. 505"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5294813
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/42/0514-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1804,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.895322709926145e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9527144246633684
    },
    "sha256": "a4184860a04fa95119bda3494b6af6c158eb06a89e211e3b1934da5e4d473fe5",
    "simhash": "1:17f707a462b79dae",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:24.172785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Lickmon, Executor, etc. v. Nathan Harding."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only point in this case is, shall the acknowledgment of the execution of a deed, made and taken before a magistrate in proper form in pursuance of the statute, prevail over the unsupported testimony of the party grantor, he alleging the same to be false and forged ?\nWe have no hesitation in answering the question in the affirmative, as it was answered by the circuit court. Public policy requires such an act should prevail over the unsupported testimony of an interested party, otherwise, there would be but slight security in titles to land.\nNo fraud or combination between any party and the officer taking the acknowledgment is shown. The magistrate, in taking the acknowledgment, acts judicially. The duty is imposed upon him by the law, of ascertaining the truth of the matters about which he is to certify. Parties act on the faith of his certificate, and, in the absence of fraud and collusion, it must be entitled to full credit. There is an entire absence of any fraud and collusion in this case, which can vitiate the deed. Graham v. Anderson et al. 42 Ill. 514.\nThe decree must be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John J. Glenn, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. Harding, McCoy & Pratt, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Lickmon, Executor, etc. v. Nathan Harding.\nAcKirowLBDaMENT of deed\u2014certificate of, must prevail oner testimony of grantor. In the absence of proof of fraud and collusion on the part of the officer taking and certifying the acknowledgment of a deed, the officer\u2019s certificate of the acknowledgment in proper form must prevail over the unsupported testimony of the party grantor that the same was false and forged.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMr. John J. Glenn, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Harding, McCoy & Pratt, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 506
}