Schley v. Pullman Car Co.
120 U.S. 575 (1837)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Schley v. Pullman Car Co., 120 U.S. 575 (1887)

Schley v. Pullman Car Company

Submitted January 6, 1887

Decided March 7, 1837

120 U.S. 575

Syllabus

An irregular act of practice by an attorney of record rebuked.

A deed, dated May 26, 1856, by C. L., grantor, described as "sister and heir-at-law of H. M." and as "of the County of St. Clair and State of Michigan," which conveyed to the grantee a tract of land in Illinois and was signed and sealed by C. L. and by W. L., the name of W. L. not appearing in the granting clause of the deed, and which was acknowledged May 27, 1856, by said "C. L. and W. L. her husband," held sufficient to pass said title of husband and wife under the statute of Illinois of February 22, 1847, then in force, respecting the conveyance of lands or real estate situate in Illinois by a feme covert not residing within the state, and respecting her joining with her husband in the execution of the deed.

A magistrate's certificate, attached to a deed of land in Illinois, that on the 27th of May, 1856, personally came C. L, and W. L., her husband, "known

Page 120 U. S. 576

to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the same to be their free act and deed" is equivalent to stating that they came before the officer and were personally known to him to be the real persons who subscribed the deed, and in this respect complied with the requirements of the statutes of Illinois then in force.

An officer's certificate of the acknowledgment on the 27th May, 1856, of a deed of land in Illinois by a married woman, showing her privy examination separate and apart from her husband, and which shows that she, "fully understanding the contents of the foregoing instrument, acknowledged," &c., is a sufficient compliance with the statutes of the state in force at that time respecting the communicating the contents of such a deed to her.

Ejectment. Plea, general issue. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.