Maryland case law › McDivit v. McDivit

McDivit v. McDivit

148 Md. 271 (1925) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedPattison✓ Good law
HoldingThe administrators of James V.

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, finally ratifying and confirming a sale of a one-half undivided interest in certain leasehold property in said ci'ty, made on the 26th day of August, 1924, by the appellees as administrators of James V. McDivit. The appellant, purchaser of said property, excepted to the sale, alleging that a good and marketable title to such property could not be acquired thereby, because, as stated by him, the acknowledgment of the deed by which James V. McDivit acquired such interest in the property, dated the 4th day of September, 1894, ¡and recorded1 in the Land Records of Baltimore City, is defective because (1) the name of the grantor does not appear therein, and (2) it is not shown from the acknowledgment .whether it was taken by a justice of the peace or notary public, and (3) that it is not shown thereby that the officer taking the acknowledgment was of Baltimore City or elsewhere. The record contains the stipulation “that James V. MeDivit entered upon and took possession of the property described in the deed from John M. Herring to James V. Mc-Divit and Joseph McDivit, dated September 24th, 1894, and recorded among the Land!

Records of Baltimore City in Liber J. B. Ho. 1518, folio 540 etc. and that said property was in their possession up to the date of the death of the said James V. McDivit, March 31st, 1922, and has remained in the possession of said Joseph McDivit since that date, and is still in his possession.” It is claimed by the appellees that though the deed was insufficient to pass a good title to the property at the time of 273 its execution, because of its defective acknowledgment, it was thereafter validated by the Curative Act of 1924, chapter 431 (article 21, section 87, of the Code of Public General Laws of 1924), but if wrong in this contention the said James V. MADivit had at the time of his death, under the facts contained in the stipulations, a good and marketable title to said property resulting from his adversary possession of it. The act named is as follows: “All deeds * * * and all other conveyances of real and personal property or of any interest therein * * * acknowledged or recorded in the State subsequent to the passage of the Act of the General Assembly of .Maryland, passed at its January session, 1858, chapter 208, which may not have been acknowledged according to the laws existing at the time of said acknowledgment, or which may not have been acknowledged before a proper officer, or when the certificate of acknowledgment is not in the prescribed

This is a preview of McDivit v. McDivit. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.