In some states the statute requires a conveyance to be acknowledged by the grantor before an official in order to make it effective even as between the parties,3 and in a number of states an acknowledgment is necessary to the validity of a conveyance by a married woman. More usually, however, the requirement of acknowledgment is imposed only as a preliminary to the record of a conveyance, for the purpose of charging a subsequent purchaser with notice thereof,4 with the result that the record of a ness, it has been decided, may be by mark. Brown v. Mccormick, 28 Mich. 215; Devereux v. Mc-mahon, 102 N. C. 284, 9 S. E. 635.

1-2. So it has been held that one having a pecuniary interest in the conveyance is disqualified. Winsted Sav. Bank & Building Ass'n v. Spencer, 26 Conn. 195; Child v. Baker, 24 Neb. 1'88. And a grantor cannot witness the execution of the instrument by his co-grantor. Townsend v. Downer, 27 Vt. 119.

A wife or husband of a grantor has also been regarded as disqualified. Third Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. O'brien, 94 Tenn. 38, 28 S. W. 293; Johnston v. Slater, 11 Grat. (Va.) 321; Cor-bett v. Norcross, 35 N. H. 99. But in some cases it has been held that the witness need not be competent to testify at the time of its execution, provided he can testify when called to prove the execution in court. Frink v. Pond, 46 N. H. 125; Doe d. Johnson v. Turner, 7 Ohio, 216, pt. 2.

3. See Lewis v. Herrera, 10 Ariz. 74, 85 Pac. 245; Parrott v. Kumpf, 102 111. 423; Hout v. Hout,

Trustee in,9 or a beneficiary under,10 a deed of trust take the acknowledgment of the grantor therein. Whether one grantor can take the acknowledgment of his cograntor appears to be uncertain.11 By the weight of authority an officer is disqualified to take an acknowledgment in which a corporation is beneficially interested if he is a stockholder therein,12 but not if

20 Ohio St. 119.

4. 1 Stimson's Am. Stat. Law, Sec. 1570.

5. See e g.; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420; Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222, 5 So. 707; New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Ober, 84 Ga. 294, 10 S. E. 625; Harris v. Reed,

21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray (Mass.) 391; Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 102, 12 Am. St. Rep. 619, 38 N. W. 801; Ligon v. Barton.

- Qualifications of officer. The statute ordinarily requires the acknowledgment to be made, if within the state, before a judge, clerk of court, justice of the peace, or notary public. The provisions of the statutes as to acknowledgment in another state sometimes provide that it may be taken by named classes of officials of the latter state, sometimes by commissioners of deeds appointed for such state, and sometimes by any officials of the other state authorized by the statutes of such state to take acknowledgments. The statutes also contain, almost invariably, specific provisions as to the officials who may take acknowledgments in foreign countries for use in the state in which the statute is passed.

It is generally agreed that an officer who is beneficially interested in the transaction cannot take an acknowledgment.7 Consequently the grantee cannot take the grantor's acknowledgment,8 nor can either the

88 Miss. 135, 40 So. 555; Finley v. Babb, 173 Mo. 257, 73 S. W. 180; Brown v. Manter, 22 N. H. 468; Bradley v. Walker, 138 N. Y. 291, 33 N. E. 1079; Geneseo First Nat. Bank v. National Live Stock Bank, 13 Okla. 719, 76 Pac. 130; Watts v. Whetstone, 79 S. C. 357, 60 S. E. 703.

6. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1572; 4 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 1676.

7. But in Tennessee, apparent ly, interest does not disqualify one to take an acknowledgment. Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg. etc. Ass'n, 97 Tenn, 285, 33 L. R. A. 338, 56 Am. St. Rep. 795, 37 S. W. 12.

There is authority for the view that interest does not disqualify if there is no other officer who can take the acknowledgment. Stevenson v. Brasher, 90 Ky. 23, 13 S. W. 242; Lewis v. Curry, 74 Mo. 49. Contra, semble, Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 307.

8. Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Brereton v. Bennett, 15 Colo. 254; Hogans v. Carruth, 18 Fla. 587; Florila Savings Bank & Real Estate Exchange v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575, 18 So. 850; Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 307; West v. Krebaum, 88 111. 263; Wilson v. Traer, 20 Iowa, 231; Greenlee v. Smith, 4 Kan. App. 733, 46 Pac. 543.

Beaman v. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; Laprad v. Sherwood, 79 Mich. 520, 44 N. W. 943; Wesson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Hainey v. Alberry, 73 Mo. 427; Amick v. Woodworth, 58 Ohio St. 86, 50 N. E. 437; Hunton v. Wood, 100 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186.

But in Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co., 120 Cal. 311, 49 Pac. 463, 52 Pac. 586, it was held that an acknowledgment taken by one of several grantees, each of whom took "a separate and denned interest" was good as to all the grantees except that one. And in Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136, a substantially similar view was taken as to an acknowledgment before one of several trustees to whom a mortgage was made.

9. Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309, 67 S. W. 869; Darst v. Dale, 83 111. 136; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. 228, 18 So. 383; German American Bank v. Carondelet Real Estate Co., 150 Mo. 570, 51 S. W. 691; Lance v. Tainter, 137 N. C. 249, 49 S. E. 211; Rothschild v. Daugher, 85 Tex. 332, 16 L. R. A. 719, 34 Am. St. Rep. 811, 20 S. W. 142; Bow-den v. Parrish, 86 Va. 67, 19 Am. St. Rep. 873, 9 S. E. 616; Hunton v. Wood, 101 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186. Contra, Weidman v. Templeton, (Tenn. Ch. App.) 61 S. W. 102.

10. Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Long v. Crews, 113 N. Car. 256, 18 S. E. 499; Baxter v. Howell, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 26 S. W. 453.

11. That he can do so, see Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal. App. 275, 96 Pac. 904. Contra, People v. Railroad Comm'rs, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 273, 93 N. Y. Supp. 584 (certificate of incorporation).

12. Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg, etc., Ass'n, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216, 26 So. 527; Ogden Bld'g, etc., Ass'n v. Mensch, 196 111. 554, 63 N. E. 1049; Steger v. Travelling Men's Bldg etc., Ass'n, 208 111. 236, 100 Am. St. Rep. 225, 70 N. E. 236; Kothe v. Krag Reynolds, 20 Ind. App. 293, 50 N. E. 594; Smith v. Clark, 100 Iowa, 605, 69 N. W. 1011; Wilson v. Griess, 64 Neb. 792, 90 N. W. 866; Bexar Bldg. etc., Ass'n v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 50 S. W. 1079, 57 S. W. 583; Boswell v. Laramie First Nat. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161, 92 Pac. 624.