Frederick Mortensen Hinch Edward Mills John.

American notary and commissioner of deeds manual: the general and statutory ... online

. (page 4 of 50)
Online LibraryFrederick Mortensen Hinch Edward Mills JohnAmerican notary and commissioner of deeds manual: the general and statutory ... → online text (page 4 of 50)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

§ 26. Necessity of Seal — ^At the common law, a notary pub-
lic was simply a commercial officer, and his official acts were
known only by his official seal,** and throughout the United
States, as a general rule, the official acts of a notary must be
authenticated by his seal as well as his signature.*'' A certifi-
cate which lacks such authentication is without force and ef-

ts London ib Biver Plate Bank
V. Carr, 54 N. Y. Misc. 94, 105 N.
T. Supp. 679.

S0 Hertig v. People, 159 HI. 240,
42 N. E. 879, 50 Am. St. Bep. 162;
B:rTi8e V. Wilson, 79 lU. 233; Chini-
quy v. Catholie Bishop of Obicago,
41 ni. 148; Moore v. Titman, 33
HL 358; Gaynor v. Hibernian Sav.
Bank, 68 HI. App. 485; Warvelle's
Abstracts (2nd Ed.), p. 207.

80 Smith V. Lyons, 80 HI. 600;
Wellington ▼. Wellington, 137 HI.
App. 894.

•1 Moore v. Titman, 33 HI. 358.

8S Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S.
546, 27 L. Ed. 254, 1 Sup. Ct. 418.

U V. 8. Bev. St. 1878, | 6.

MMnncie Nat. Bank v. Brown,
112 Ind. 474, 14 N. E. 358.

WSee ff 37-90, post.

MDawsey v. Kerven, 203 Ala.
446, 83 So. 338, 7 A. L. B. 1658.

WQark V. Wilson, 127 HI. 449,
19 N. E. 860, 11 Am. St. Bep. 143;
Booth V. Cook, 20 HI. 129; Miller
V. State, 122 Ind. 355, 24 N. E.
156; Stephens v. WiUiams, 46 Iowa
540; Gage v. Dubuque & P. B. Co.,
11 Iowa 310, 77 Am. Dec. 145; Tu-
nis V. Withrow, 10 Iowa 305, 77
Am. Dec. 117; Gharst v. St. Louis
Transit Co., 115 Mo. App. 403, 91
S. W. 453; Welton v. Atkinson, 55
Neb. 674, 76 N. W. 473, 70 Am.
St Bep. 416.

Digitized by VjOOQIC




feet.** The notary must authenticate with his official seal, and
not with a scrawl.** There are exceptions to the general rule,
and the seal has been held unnecessary except in cases required
by statute or the common law,** and in some cases the seal is
unnecessary by express statutory provision. It may also be
necessary for the notary to state that he has authority to act,
to verify the seal.*^

In some states, and under some statutes, the seal is not neces-
sary to authenticate a certificate of acknowledgment,** but
under the rules of other cases, the seal is required, especially
where the acknowledgment is to be used in another county.**
A notary's certificate of acknowledgment has been held incom-
plete without it.**

Under some statutes, notaries are not required to authenti-
cate jurats to be used within their county, with their official
seals,** and in a number of cases affidavits have been held suffi-
cient though there was no seal,** as where the official character
of the notary otherwise appeared .*'' Usually, however, the

•SWelton V. Atkinson, 55 Neb.
674, 76 N. W. 473, 70 Am. St. Bep.

Proof of the official character
of a notary public using a notarial
seal is not required. Harding v.
Curtis, 45 HI. 252; Stephens v. Wil-
liams, 46 Iowa 540.

«» Moore v. Titman, 33 HI. 358;
Booth V. Cook, 20 HI. 129; Ihimont
v. McCracken, 6 Blackf. (Ind.)
355; Hinckley v. O 'Parrel, 4
Blackf. (Ind.) 185; Rindskoflf, Bro.
& Co. v. Malone, 9 Iowa 540, 74
Am. Dec. 367.

40Schaefer v. Kienzel, 123 HI.
430, 15 N. E. 164; Mineral Point
R. Co. V. Keep, 22 HI. 9, 74 Am.
Dec. 124.

41 Smith V. Lyons, 80 HI. 600.

4aDaw8ey v. Kirven, 203 Ala.
446, 83 So. 338, 7 A. L. B. 1658.

48 Rowley v. Berrian, 12 111. 198.

44 Rowley V. Berrian, 12 HI. 198;

Mason v. Brock, 12 HI. 273, 52 Am.
Dec. 490; Thompson v. Scheid, 39
Minn. 102, 38 N. W. 801, 12 Am.
St. Rep. 619.

45 Thielmann v. Burg, 73 HI. 298;
Dyer v. Flint, 21 HI. 80, 74 Am.
Dec. 73; Stout v. Slattery, 12 HI.
162; Rowley v. Berrian, 12 HI. 198;
People V. Schleig, 185 HI. App. 480.

In attachment cases the affi-
davit may be made before any
officer authorized by the laws of
this state to administer oaths. If
in the county, seal is not required,
but is if outside the county or
state. Rowley v. Berrian, 12 HI.

46 Clement v. Bullens, 159 Mass.
193, 34 N. E. 173; Earle v. Na-
tional Metallurgic Co., 77 N. J. Bq.
17, 76 Atl. 555.

47 Earle v. National MetaUurgic
Co., 77 N. J. Eq. 17, 76 Atl. 555.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


statutes require the official seal to be affixed, and an affidavit
is not properly verified otherwise.**

The omission of the seal when a deposition is taken has been
held not fatal to the validity of the act, but in the case in-
volved a statute existed whereby the deposition was eflfectual
without a seal.**

Some states require the seal to be attached to certificates of
protest,*^ while in others it is not required, the certificate being
sufficient evidence of the fact.** The general rule is that the
seal is necessary, and, in the absence of such seal, extraneous
evidence of the officer's authority to protest must be given.**

§ 27. Additional Authentication ; Proof of Official Character.
— Usually, the certificate of a foreign notary must be authenti-
cated by some other official, showing his appointment and au-
thority to act,** although it has been held that proof of the
official character of a notary public using a notarial seal is not
required.** Statutes have been enacted in many states govern-
ing this matter. Thus, some states require the notaries of other
states and countries to have their official character certified to
by the clerk of the county court under the court seal or by the
secretary of the state under the great seal of the state. The
seal authenticates the notary's signature. The clerk of the
county court may certify to his appointment but not to his sig-
nature.** The necessity of additional authentication or proof
of a notary's authority may be said to exist principally when
the power involved, and which is exercised, did not exist at
the common law, where such power has been conferred by stat-

4» Town of Knox v. Golding, 46 v. Cair, 54 N. Y. Miac. 94, 105 N.

Ind. App. 634, 91 N. E. 867, 92 N. Y. Supp. 679.

E. 986; HiU v. AUiance Bldg. Co., 68 Hill Clutch Go. v. Independent

6 S. D. 160, 60 N. W. 752, 65 Am. Steel Co. of America, 74 W. Va.

St. Bep. 819. 353, 82 S. E. 223; Bohn v. Zeigler,

49 Carpenter v. Gibson, 82 Vt. 44 W. Va. 402, 29 S. E. 983.

336, 73 Atl. 1030. See also Bohn M Harding v. Curtis, 45 HI. 252;

V. Zeigler, 44 W. Va. 402, 29 8. B. Singletary v. Watson, 136 Ga. 241,

983. 71 S. E. 162.

W Kirksey v. Bates, 7 Port. W Stephens v. Williams, 46 Iowa

(Ala.) 529. 640; Browne v. Philadelphia Bank,

51 Bank of Kentucky v. Pursley, 6 Serg. & B. (Pa.) 484, 9 Am. Deo.

3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 238. 468.

5S London S$ Biver Piatt Bank

Digitized by VjOOQIC

§ 28]



nte. Accordingly, proof of authority to act is required when
an oath is administered, this being a power which did not exist
at the common law.** But where a statute provides that a re-
cital of the ofiScial character of the officer shall be sufficient
proof that he is a notary, such recital is not necessary to the
validity of the affidavit. The statute merely refers to a method
of proof .•^

§ 28. Effect of Notary's Oeitlflcate; Impeachment of Oertifl-
cate« — Generally, a notarial certificate of protest is competent
evidence without further proof,** and, in many states, statutory
provisions expressly declare the certificates of notaries to be
prima facie evidence of their acts.**

By the universal consent of nations, credence is given to the
attestation of a notary.** ** Their acts duly authenticated are
valid everywhere and prove themselves by the comity of na-
tions. "«i

Although a written instrument may be impeached for fraud
or misrepresentation, even though it is acknowledged,** clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof of the falsity or fraud is re-
quired,** and some cases also require proof of collusion of the
grantees with the notary.** Usually, a notary cannot be offered
in evidence to impeach his own certificate of acknowledgment,**

M People V. Nelson, 150 BL App.
595; Holbrook v. Libby, 113 Me.
389, 94 AtL 482, L. B. A. 1916A
1167; Leavitt v. Williams, 150 N.
Y. Supp. 667.

See post, f 93.

VtjyatB V. Board of Excise
Com'rs of Jersey City, 80 N. J. L.
475, 79 Aa 316.

58 Johnson v. Brown, 154 Mass.
105, 27 N. E. 994.

59 Trevor v. Colgate, 181 HI. 129,
54 N. E. 909.

See II 37-90, post.

eoKirksey v. Bates, 7 Port.
(Ala.) 529; BpegaU v. Perkins, 2
Boot (Conn.) 274.

61 Sonfleld T. Thompson, 42 Ark.
46, 48 Am. Bep. 49.

As a public officer his office af-

fects the people generally, and does
not concern alone a particular dis-
trict or private individuals. This
is shown from the antiquity of the
office, nature of their duties, and
the fact that their acts have al-
ways been respected by the custom
of merchants and the courts of all
countries. Keeney v. Leas, 14
Iowa 464.

etMahan v. Schroeder, 142 HI.
App. 538; Tannenbaum v. Schaffer,
122 N. Y. Supp. 180.

63 Sheridan County v. McEIinney,
79 Neb. 223, 115 N. W. 548.

64 Bvart V. Dalrympls (Tex. Civ.
App.), 131 S> W. 223.

66 Shapleigh v. Hull, 21 Colo. 419,
41 Pac. 1108; Nicholson v. Snyder,
97 Md. 415, 55 AtL 484.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


although some cases hold him to be a mere ministerial officer,
so that his evidence may impeach his certificate.^ The notary
is not an agent so as tb be disqualified from being a witness,
when one of the parties is deceased, as where a statute excludes
the testimony of agents of deceased persons,^ and communica-
tions made to a notary when an acknowledgment is taken can-
not be held privileged.^ Privileged communications are those
communications which are excluded in the trial of cases be-
cause of public policy, such as statements made by a client to
his attorney. A certificate may be proved false by other evi-
dence,^ but the unsupported testimony of a party to a deed
that he did not execute it cannot prevail over the official certifi-
cate of the officer taking the acknowledgment.'®

In Louisiana a notary's statement that a will was written by
him, as dictated by the testator, in the presence and hearing
of the witnesses, whose names are mentioned, and then read by
him to the testator in the presence and hearing of said wit-
nesses, at one and the same time, without interruption or turn-
ing aside, meets all the code requirements.''^

§ 29. PresumptionB as to Acts of Notaries. — ^Like other pub-
lic officers, there is a presumption in favor of the validity of
acts of notaries, and usually such acts can only be impeached
for fraud. Every act is prima facie accepted as true, and is,
as a result, of the most solemn character. The errors or mis-
takes of notaries will not be visited upon the parties who act
before him. Thus, if a notary certifies to the protest of nego-
tiable' paper for nonpayment, every intendment is presumed in
favor of the fair performance of his duty by the notary.^ If
a certificate is made by a foreign notary who appears to be a
woman, the court will assume that she was rightfully appointed,
and that she acted rightfully, unless the contrary is made to

66 Effenberger v. Durant, 57 Okla. 69 Nicholson v. Snyder, 97 Md.

445, 156 Pac. 212. See also Craig 415, 55 Atl. 484.

V. Shallcross, 10 Serg. & B. (Pa.) 70 Kerr v. RusseU, 69 HI. 666, 18

377. Am. Bep. 634.

«7Borcher8 v. Barckers, 158 Mto. 71 Monroe v. Liebman, 47 La.

App. 267, 138 S. W. 555. Ann. 155, 16 So. 734.

68 People V. Driggs, 14 Cal. App. 7i Kupf erberg v. Horowitz, 53

507, 112 Pac. 577. N. T. Misc. 488, 102 N. Y. Supp.


Digitized by VjOOQIC




appear.'" An officer taking a deposition is presumed entitled
to the character that he assumes, and is presumed to act with
authority.''* Notaries are presumed to act within their juris-
diction,''* and where the records of a deed fail to show a nota-
tion of the affixing of the seal to a document, such seal will be
presumed attached to the original instrument.''*

§ 30. Judicial Notice. — Judicial notice is the cognizance
taken by a court of matters of fact, without the production of
evidence thereof. The matters of fact of which judicial notice
will be taken are, in general, those of general notoriety, imme-
morial usage, or uniform national occurrence.''^ Courts take
judicial notice of the officers of their county, and proof of the
official character of these officers is not required.''* Notaries
being officers recognized by the commercial law of the world,
the courts will take judicial notice of their seals,''* of their
appointment and continuance in office, and to inform itself
will refer to the official records of such facts.**

§ 31. Liabilities.

§ 32. — In General — ** A notary, when he assumes the duties
of his office, is required to know the law in relation to his busi-

tZ Nicholson v. Eureka Lumber
Co., 160 N. C. 33, 75 8. B. 730, Ann.
Caa. 1914C 202.

74 Carpenter v. Gibson, 82 Vt.
336, 73 Atl. 1030.

76 Westover v. Bridgf ord, 25 Cal.
App. 548, 144 Pac. 313; Barber v.
De Ford, 169 Iowa 692, 150 N. W.
86; Hansford v. Snyder, 63 W. Va.
198, 59 8. E. 975; Reynolds v. Mor-
ton,' 22 Wyo. 174, 136 Pac. 795.

76 Bule V. Richards, — Tex. Civ.
App. — , 149 8. W. 1073.

T7Cyc. Law Bict.

78 Hertig v. People, 159 111. 237,
42 N. E. 879, 50 Am. St. Rep. 162;
Schaefer v. Kienzel, 123 lU. 430,
15 N. E. 164; Thielmann v. Burg,
73 m. 293; Graham v. Anderson,
42 lU.' 514, 92 Am. Dec. -89; Dyer
V. Flint, 21 m. 80, 74 Am. Deo.
73; Irving v. Brownell, 11 lU. 402.

79 Pardee v. Schanzlin, 3 Cal.
App. 597, 86 Pac. 812; Hertig v.
People, 159 HI. 240, 42 N. E. 879,
50 Am. St. Rep. 162; McDonald v.
People, 123 HI. App. 346; Stoddard
V. Sloan, 65 Iowa 680, 22 N. W.
924; State v. Zehnder, 182 Mo. App.
161, 168 S. W. 661; Brown Mfg. Co.
V. Gilpin, 120 Mo. App. 130, 96 S.
W. 669; T. W. Barhydt & Co. v. G.
N. Alexander & Co., 59 Mo. App.
188; Butts V. Purdy, 63 Ore. 150,
125 Pac. 313, 127 Pac. 25; Wiley
V. Carson, 15 8. D. 298, 89 N. W.
475; Sloane v. Anderson, 57 Wis.
123, 13 N. W. 684, 15 N. W. 21;
Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. 8. 546,
27 L. Ed. 254, 1 Sup. Ct. 418.

SOBntts V. Purdy, 63 Ore. 150,
125 Pac. 313, 127 Pac. 25. See also
City of Birmingham v. Edwards,
201 Ala. 251, 77 So. 841.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


ness.*'" This does not mean that he is a lawyer, and he is not
presumed to be a lawyer. If, for instance, a notary is ordered
to demand and protest a bill on a wrong day, there is no right
of aetion for loss ensuing, as the notary is not expected to re-
verse or revise the decisions of his employer.*' Similarly if
there is a disputed question as to the manner of performance
of his duties, which involves the judicial construction of a
statute. In such case the notary cannot be held liable for error
resulting in loss.** And in the case of an instrument drawn
by a notary who is not a lawyer, it has been held that ''little
weight is to be attached to any formal words employed."**
But a notary holds himself out to the world as competent to
perform the business connected with his office, and to perform
his duties with integrity .*• The performance of such duties
involves more than mere honesty; it involves care, diligence,
attention and reasonable competency. Great faith and credit
is reposed in the certificates of notaries, and a corresponding
duty is imposed on them to exercise care and caution, such as
a reasonably prudent man, burdened ^vith such responsibility,
would exercise.*^ Most of the cases of improper acts of notaries,
or misconduct, involve the administration of oaths, the taking of
acknowledgments, or neglect in protesting or performing duties
with respect to commercial paper, matters which require sepa-
rate treatment in detail.*''

The notary *s negligence or misconduct is a serious matter
subjecting both him and his bondsmen to liability," and giv-
ing cause for removal from office.** In addition, the failure
to properly perform his duties may result in a notary not be-
ing entitled to his fees,** or subjecting him to criminal liabil*
ity. Also the failure to properly perform his duties may ren-
der his acts of no avail. An acknowledgment taken before a
notary whose commission has expired has been held insuffi-

Sl Neal A Co. v. Taylor, 9 Bush «5Fogarty v. Finlay, 10 Cal. 239,

(Ky.) 380. 70 Am. Dec. 714.

•t Commercial Bank of Kentucky 86 State v. Webber, 177 Mo. App.

V. Vamum, 49 N. T. 269. eO, 164 S. W. 184.

M Neal & Co. v. Taylor, 9 Buah 87 See ch. VI, post.

(Ky.) 380. 88 See { 33, post

84Northnip v. Scott, 85 N. Y. 89 See | 14, ante.

Misc. 516, 148 N. Y. Snpp. 846. 90 See S 36, post.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


cient.*^ So extensive are the results in thin respect that it is
difficult to name them or to name all of them. Generally the
derelictions of duty are mistakes, casual happenings, or mere
careless occurrences. But the results are extensive, either re-
sulting in penalty to the notary, or serious consequences to
those who rely upon his acts. And usually the notary is the
one who must suffer. Where a bill of sale by a mortgagor of
property was written, witnessed and acknowledged by a no-
tary public, who subsequently claimed the property involved
under a chattel mortgage, it was held that the notary was
estopped from claiming the property under the rule frequently
applied by the courts that where one of two innocent persons
must suffer by the act of a third, he whose negligence caused
the loss must be the sufferer.** The case properly does not
detail a liability, but illustrates the penalties of improper per-
formance of duty, or neglect.

A judgment against a notary for negligence has been sus-
tained as a community judgment. It has been held that a
community may engage in the business of notary public, and
can obtain authority for one of its members so to act.** The
case is called attention to as further emphasizing the extent of
a notary's liability. In states where the community property
system obtains, the combined earnings of husband and wife
may be subjected to execution, because of a chance dereliction
of duty. In fact, in the case referred to, the notary attempted
to show that he was ordinarily careful and prudent, but by
the application of well-known rules of evidence, this proof was
rejected by the court. The specific act of negligence relied
upon was established.

Notaries have been held to be public officers within the mean-
ing of a constitutional provision forbidding them from accept-
ing free passes, free transportation, franking privileges, etc.,
from any person or corporation, or from making use of the
same while holding office.**

tl Ltmbert v. Murray, 52 Colo. 04 People v. Wadhams, 176 N. Y.

156, 120 Pae. 415. 9, 68 N. B. 65, 18 Chicago Law

WStoffels V. Brown, 37 N. D. Jour. 600; People v. Bathbone, 145

272, 163 N. W. 834. N. T. 434, 40 N. B. 396, 28 L. B.

MKangley v. Bogers, 85 Wash. A. 384.
260, 147 Pac 898.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


[§ 33

§ 33. — ^Liabilities on Official Bonds.— Bonds of notaries pub-
lic may be in favor of some public official, such as the governor,
but such official is only nominally a party to the bond, the real
beneficiaries or obligees being the persons who suffer loss from
the official misdoings of the notary .•* Usually any party in-
jured by official misconduct or neglect has a right of action by
reason thereof .•* An assignee of a mortgage may recover dam-
ages when the mortgage contains a false certificate of acknowl-
edgment.®'' Notaries and their bondsmen may be liable for the
failure of a notary to perform a duty incumbent on him, or
required by law,®* for negligence in the performance of the
notary's duty,*® for the failure to give notice of dishonor of
protested commercial paper,^ for negligence in giving an insuffi-
cient notice of protest,® for the making of a false certificate of
acknowledgment,® and the failure of a notary to state in a
certificate of acknowledgment that the party was known, or
identified by witnesses, as required by statute, has been char-

ts Globe Indemnity Co. v. O'Con-
nor, 147 La. 195, 84 So. 585.

M State V. American Surety Co.
of New York, 203 Mo. App. 71, 217
S. W. 317.

97WU8on V. Oribben, 152 Iowa
379, 132 N. W. 849.

96 Schmitt v. Drouet, 42 La. Ann.
1064,, 8 So. 396, 21 Am. St. Bep.

99 Stork v. American Surety Co.,
109 La. 713, 33 So. 742.

1 Tevis T. BandaU, 6 Cal. 632, 65
Am. Dec. 547; Neal & Co. v. Tay-
lor, 9 Bush (Ky.) 380; Williams v.
Parks, 63 Neb. 747, 89 N. W. 395,
56 L. B. A. 759; Wheeler v. State,
9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 393.

t Bowling V. Arthur, 34 Miss. 41.

SHeidt V. Minor, 113 Cal. 385,
45 Pac. 700; Kleinpeter v. Castro,
11 Cal. App. 83, 103 Pac. 1090;
Doran ▼. Butler, 74 Mich. 643,
(People V. Butler), 42 N. W. 273;
State ▼. Plaae, 58 Mo. App. 148;

Lesser v. Wunder, 9 Wkly. Dig. (N.
Y.) 56.

Most of the states positively for-
bid the attestation or acknowledg-
ment of an instrument by the offi-
cer unless he positively knows, or
has satisfactory evidence on the
oath or affirmation of credible wit-
nesses, that the person making the
acknowledgment is the individual
described in and who executed the
instrument. A disregard of these
requirements renders the officer or
his sureties liable for any result-
ing loss or damage, unless the los-
ing party is the proximate cause.
Joost V. Craig, 131 Cal. 604, 63 Pac.
840, 82 Am. St. Bep. 374; Hatton
V. Holmes, 97 Cal. 208, 31 Pac.
1131; Overacre v. Blake, 82 Cal.
77, 22 Pac. 979; Oakland Bank of
Savings v. Murfey, 68 CaL 455, 9
Pac. 843; Bank of California v.
Western U. TeL Co., 52 Cal. 280;
Taylor v. Western Pac B. Co., 45
Cal. 323.

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


acterized as ** gross negligence."* This matter of miscondnct
and negligence in the taking of acknowledgments is so exten-
sive as to require special treatment iii detail, and is only re-
ferred to at this time as an instance of when bondsmen may
be liable.*

The bond of a notary is purely one of indemnity, and in
case of recovery, the amount is limited to the actual loss sus-
tained from the act of the notary.® A notary's bond, furnished
in compliance with a special law requiring it, is a legal bond,
which the law forms part of. It is a contract to be strictly
construed, the object being to make certain the faithful per-
formance and discharge of all the duties of the office, and in
case of his failure to do so, or any loss sustained, the sureties
to be held liable. The bond is so conditioned for the protec-
tion of all persons employing him professionally. Before he
and his sureties can be held, it is necessary to determine
whether the act done or not done, committed or omitted, was
or was not authorized by law and whether injury has been sus-
tained. The liability of the sureties is only on his failure to
discharge the duties of his office well and faithfully.'' The dam-
ages recoverable are such as naturally and proximately result
from the breach of duty.* Where a notary procured money
from a purchaser of property by representing that his client
needed it, and promised delivery of a deed the following day,
and then misappropriated the money, the fact that the notary
had prepared a forged deed did not render the bondsmen liable.
The forged deed and the false acknowledgment appended

4Pogarty v. Finlay, 10 Cal. 239, 42 La.' Ann. 1064, 8 So. 396, 21

70 Am. Dec. 714; Peterson v. Ma- Am. St. Rep. 408; Monrose v. Bro-

hon, 27 N. D. 92, 145 N. W. 596. card, 20 La. Ann. 78; Lescouzeve

3ee also Joost v. Craig, 131 Cal. 604, v. Ducatel, 18 La. Ann. 470.

63 Pac. 840, 82 Am. St. Bep. 374; • State v. Packard, 199 Mo. App.

State V. Byland, 163 Mo. 280, 63 53, 201 S. W. 953; State Nat. Bank

8. W. 819. V. Mee, 39 Okla. 775, 136 Pac. 758.

6 See ch. m, post. Under Bev. Code, { 326, snreties

6 State V. American Surety Co. are liable for injury which results
of New York, 203 Mo. App. 71, proximately from the official mis-
217 S. W. 317; State v. Packard, conduct or neglect of a notary.
199 Mo. App. 53, 201 S. W. 953. Ellis v. Hale, — Mont. — , 194 Pac.

7 Weintz v. Kramer, 44 La. Ann. 166.
35, 10 So. 416; Schmitt v. Drouet,

Digitized by VjOOQIC

30 N0TAHIE8 PUBLIC. [§ 34

thereto were not the proximate cause of the loss.* No dam-
ages can be recovered from a notary or his bondsmen for offi-
cial misconduct or neglect when no damage has been sus-

Online LibraryFrederick Mortensen Hinch Edward Mills JohnAmerican notary and commissioner of deeds manual: the general and statutory ... → online text (page 4 of 50)