held the seal sufficient, saying: "We think the seal does indicate the official character of the officer, and that is all the statute requires. The statute does not require that the seal shall state the name of the county in which the notary resides or for which he was appointed." See Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546.

J. P's seal. A justice of the peace is not required to use anything but a scroll; and there is no presumption that he has an official seal: Dumont v. McCracken, 6 Blackf. 355.

“Given under my hand and official seal." It is not necessary to state that the certificate is given under his hand and seal, when the seal and signature are in fact affixed: Harrington v. Fish, 10 Mich. 415. Nor is it necessary to say it was given under an "official" seal, if the notarial seal is in fact affixed; "under seal" being sufficient: Moore v. Titman, 33 III. 358; Monroe v. Arledge, 23 Texas, 478: Contra, Wetmore v. Laird, 5 Biss. 160. Where the phrase used was "Given under my hand of office," it was held sufficient; for every person must know what was meant: Nichols v. Stewart, 15 Texas, 226.

The use of war. "Formerly, wax was the most convenient and the only material used to receive and retain the impression of the seal. Hence it was sa d: Sigillum est cera impressa; quia cera, sine impressione, non est sigillum. But this is not an allegation that an impression without wax is not a seal, and for this reason courts have held that an impression made on wafers or other adhesive substance capable of receiving an impression, will come within the definition of 'cera impressa.' If, then, wax be construed to be merely a general term, including within it any substance capable of receiving and retaining the impression of a seal, we cannot perceive why paper, if it have

that capacity, should not as well be included in the category. The simple and powerful machines now used to impress public seals, do not require any soft adhesive substance to receive or retain their impression. The impression made by such a power on paper, is as well defined, or durable, and less likely to be destroyed or defaced by vermin, accident or intention, than that made on wax. It is the seal which authenticates and not the substance on which it is impressed; and when the court can recognize its identity, they should not be called upon to analyze the material which exhibits it:" Pillow v. Roberts, 13 How. 472. This was said of a court's seal.

Of a Norway notary's seal, it was said: "The use of wax or some other adhesive substance, upon which the seal of a public officer may be impressed, has long ceased to be regarded as important. It is enough, in the absence of positive law prescribing otherwise, that the impress of the seal is made upon the paper itself, in such a manner as to be readily identified upon inspection:" Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 516.

Place to attach seal. "If the certificate be under his hand and seal of office,' it is sufficient, and it cannot be of any importance where the seal is affixed. It may be at the beginning, at the end, or anywhere upon the margin, or it might be appended by a ribbon, after the manner of the sealing of ancient charters. The officer is not required to certify to the sealing, but it is sufficient if the seal be, in fact, affixed and the name signed. Unquestionably, therefore, if the seal had been placed where it is, and the sig nature only at the bottom of the last part of the certificate, the whole would have been sufficiently verified. I do not think it is any less so by reason of the words in testimonium veritatis,'

*

*

*

with the signature opposite the seal, between the two parts of the certificate. The whole may, with propriety, be regarded as one certificate, once sealed and twice signed. I adopt this conclusion the more readily, because the objection is merely formal; the certificate, in its present form, furnishing all the security against error, and imposing upon the notary all the responsibility which it would do if another seal were added. * The case most nearly resembling the present, of any to which our attention has been called, is that of The State v. Coyle, 33 Me. 427. In that case, a complaint and justice's warrant in pursuance of it, were written on the same piece of paper, and the only seal was at the end of the justice's signature to the complaint, the warrant being written beneath it. It was held that the warrant was sufficiently sealed. These authorities, particularly the last, justify the admission of the certificate of the notary, espe cially as such certificate furnishes presumptive proof only of the facts contained in it, concluding neither of the parties:" Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546; affirining 40 Barb. 179.

Recording seals. Necessarily deeds and mortgages must be acknowledged before an officer authorized to take the acknowledgment, and if he have a seal, he must affix it to his certifi cate of acknowledgment. When the deed or mortgage is recorded, it is difficult or impossible, in fact, to record the impression made by the seal. What effect has this on the record? Said the court, in Griffin v. Sheffield, 38 Miss. 359, “the statute of registration does not contemplate the recording of the impression of a public seal; and hence it is no objection to the admission in evidence of a certified copy of a recorded deed, that a copy of the impression of the official seal of

the officer who took the acknowledgment of the grantor does not appear on it, if it be stated in the body of the certificate of acknowledgment that it was certified under such official seal." In Smith v. Dall, 13 Cal. 510, it was held that the omission, in the record of a deed, to make a copy of the seal, or some mark to indicate the seal, does not vitiate the record; but that it is "enough if it appear from the record that the instrument copied is under seal." See Jones v. Martin, 16 Cal. 165. In Putney v. Cutler, 54 Wis. 66, whilst citing the cases, it was said: "Whether we would be justified in going to the extent of these decisions, may be doubtful. It has certainly been held by other courts, that when the record of a deed does not show a copy of the seal as such copies are usually made in records, the presumption is that there was no seal on the original.' In the case at bar, the record does not 'show a copy of the seal as such copies are usually made in records,' and hence it must be proved that the corporate seal was upon each of the original deeds in question." See Hury v. Van Wie, 23 Wis. 613.

Proving seal. The seal of a court of admiralty, like a national seal, proves itself. Accordingly, the record of a court of vice admiralty, in Bermuda, purporting to be certified by the deputy registrar, under the seal of the court, was held admissible in evidence, without other proof of anthenticity. In passing on the question, the court said: "The decree of vice-admiralty admitted by the judge, purported to be under the seal of the court, and to be certified by the deputy registrar. It is contended by the defendant that the record was not duly authenticated. I am of a differ ent opinion. The decisions relative to the adjudications of foreign muni

cipal courts must be laid out of the question. The seals of such courts are never judicially recognized, but must be proved: Anon., 9 Mod. 66; Henry v. Adey, 3 East. 221; Collins v. Mathew, 5 Id. 473. The cases of Delafield v. Hand, 3 Johns. 310; and Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187, are also of this description. By common consent and general usage, the seal of admiralty has been considered as sufficiently authenticating its records. No objection has prevailed against the reception of the decree of a court acting on the law of nations, when established by its seal. The seal is deemed to be evidence of itself, because such courts are considered as courts of the whole civilized world, and every person interested as a party: Green v. Waller, 2 Ld. Raym. 893; Peake's Ev. 74; Swift's Ev. 7; The Maria, 1 Rob. Adm. 340. The case of Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335, is not adverse to this proposition. The seal of the viceadmiralty court was not proved by extrinsic evidence. No stress could have been put on the testimony of a witness that he had once received from his proctor a copy of the proceedings in the said court under a similar seal, or that similar papers had, by insurers and others, been considered authentic. Such evidence was too feeble to establish the fact for which it was adduced on any reasonable foundation. The seal then proved its own authenticity. 'Assuming the seal to be genuine,' said GOULD, J., in Griswold v. Pitcairn, 2 Conn. 91, the fact (that it was affixed by a proper officer) must, of course, be proved, unless the contrary is shown. For any higher evidence of the fact appearing upon the face of the record, than the seal itself imports, is impossible, and to require extrinsic evidence of it, would be to subvert the rule itself, that a national seal is the highest proof of authen

ticity. These remarks are applicable to the seal of a court of admiralty, and for this obvious reason, because, equally with a national seal, it proves itself. As to Gardere v. Columbia Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 514, it professedly waives the question before the court. The seal in that case has (had) been proved by extrinsic evidence. It is, therefore,' said YATES, J., who deliv ered the opinion of the court, ‘unnecessary to notice the distinction urged in the argument, between foreign municipal tribunals and courts of admiralty."

Authentication under a private seal is of no effect: Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187.

In Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335, it was held, that copies of the proceedings of the vice-admiralty court of Jamaica, are admissible in evidence, when certified under the seal of the court, by the deputy registrar, who was certified to by the judge of the court, and he by a notary public.

Proof of the official character of a notary public is not necessary. “By the customary law of nations, as well as the law merchant, the official acts of a notary public are authenticated by his seal" Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala. 527; and his certificate under his notarial seal is prima facie evidence that he is a notary duly commissioned: Browne v. Philadelphia Bank, 6 S. & R. 484.

Judicial notice of seals. Courts will take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public, for they are officers recognized by the commercial law of the world: Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546; citing Townsley v. Sumrall, 2 Pet. 179; Chanoine v. Fowler, 3 Wend. 173; Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 559; Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81. See also Anon., 12 Mod. 345; Wright v. Barnard, 2 Esp. 700; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335; Browne

So

v. Philadelphia Bank, 6 S. & R. 484; Porter v. Judson, 1 Gray, 175; Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. 823; U. S. v. Libby, 1 Wood & M. 221. courts will take judicial knowledge of the great seal of a foreign country: United States v. Johns, 4 Dall. 416; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; Anon., 9 Mod. 66; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475; United States v. Wagner, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 585; Griswold v. Fitcairn, 2 Conn. 85; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187. But the courts will not judicially notice the seal of a government which has not been recognized by the sovereign power of the country under which those tribunals are constituted: City of Berne v. Bank of England, 9 Ves. 347; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat, 610. Such a seal may, however, be proven by the evidence of witnesses:

United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 634; The Estrella, 4 Id. 298. See Hatfield v. Jameson, 2 Munf. 53, 70,

71.

So, as we have elsewhere seen, foreign admiralty and maritime courts, being the courts of the civilized world, and of co-ordinate jurisdiction, are judicially recognized, and their seals need not be proved: Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 435; Rose v. Himely, 4 Id. 241, 292; Church v. Hubbard, 2 Id. 187; Thompson v. Stewart, 3 Conn. 171; Green v. Waller, 2 Ld. Raym. 891; Anon., 9 Mod. 66.

So courts of this country will recognize the seal of a court in a sister State, when the certificate of its clerk or prothonotary is authenticated by the presiding judge thereof: Clark v. Depew, 25 Pa. St. 509; Coffee v. Neely, 2 Heisk. 304. If there be no seal, the fact should be stated in the certificate of the clerk or judges; for the courts always presume that another court has a seal, unless it is a domestic court: Kirkland v. Smith, 2

Mart. (La.) N. S. 497; Alston v. Taylor, 1 Hayw. 385. In such a case, the seal should be affixed to the clerk's certificate, rather than to the judge's authentication: Turner v. Waddington, 3 Wash. C. C. 126.

The validity of a seal may always be contested: Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326; Dickens v. Beal, 10 Pet. 582; Mullen v. Morris, 2 Barr. 86; Bradley v. Northern Bank, 60 Ala. 258; Donegan v. Wood, 49 Id. 251.

Notarial seals. A notary public was an officer known to the common law, and to be one using a seal. It will be presumed, therefore, in the absence of proof, that the common law is in force in another State of the Union, and that a notary acting there has a seal. If the seal is not attached to his certificate, it will be invalid and of no force in evidence: Dumont v. McCracken, 6 Black f.355.

This, however, is rather a harsh rule to enforce against a foreign notary; for it is well known that in several States notaries act without seals, and are not required to keep them.

It is the general rule that a notary can act only by and through his seal, and in the absence of it, his acts or statements cannot be proven by his certificate: Rindskoff v. Malone, 9 Iowa, 540; Grand Rapids v. Hastings, 36 Mich. 123; Wedel v. Herman, 59 Cal. 507; Jowers v. Blandy, 58 Ga. 383.

For this reason, a deposition will be suppressed, unless it bears the official seal of a notary: Stephens v. Williams, 46 Iowa 540. So, an affidavit: Tunis v. Withrow, 10 Iowa, 305; Stephens v. Williams, 46 Id. 541; Stone v. Miller, 60 Id. 249; Hinckley v. O'Farrel, 4 Black f. 185. See Smith v. Bondurant, 74 Ga. 416; Cary v. State, 76 Ala. 78.

Where a statute made the execution, acknowledgment, and proper certi·

ficate of a notary essential to the conveyance of an estate of a married woman, the absence of his seal was held to render such conveyance void; for the statute must be strictly pursued: Ewald v. Corbett, 32 Cal. 493; Barrett v. Tewksbury, 9 Id. 14; Hastings v. Vaughn, 5 Id. 315. Such a certificate, it was held, could not be corrected by the notary, nor by a court of equity, even though she received, with her husband, a valuable consideration for the land conveyed: Barrett v. Tewksbury, supra; Bours v. Zachariah, 11 Cal. 281.

In Wisconsin, it was said of a notary: "It is true that he did not affix his official seal; but it has frequently been held under similar statutes, that the certificate of acknowledgment need not be authenticated by the notarial seal." That was said of the acknowledgment of the execution of a deed taken by the notary: Maxwell v. Hartman, 50 Wis. 660; citing Farnum v. Buffum, 4 Cush. 260; Learned v. Riley, 14 Allen, 109; Baze v. Arper, 6 Minn. 220; Thompson v. Morgan, Id. 292; Fund Commissioners of Muskingum Co. v. Glass, 17 Ohio, 542.

Where a notary public had failed to affix his sezl to a protest, it was held, that he "had the right at the time (of the objection to its admission in evidence) to affix his seal, and thus every difficulty would have been obviated;" and that a general objection to the reception of the protest in evidence, was non availing, the absence of a seal must have been specifically pointed out if relied upon: Rindskoof v. Malone, 9 Iowa, 540.

So where a notary took a deposition and failed to attach his seal to the certificate, he could amend by attaching his seal thereto, and the deposition could then be used in evidence: Chapman v. Allen, 15 Texas, 232.

A statute provided that "no notarial act shall be valid unless the seal of office be appended." A notary affixing the seal of the county court, instead of his notarial seal, to the ccrtificate of acknowledgment of a married woman and her husband; it was held, that the certificate had no validity whatever until his seal of office was affixed, and that the feme covert was at liberty to retract her acknowledgment, in any manner she saw proper, at any time prior to such seal being affixed: McKellar v. Peck, 39 Texas, 381.

That a seal of the notary is essential to the validity of his act, see Richards v. Randolph, 5 Mason, 115; Little v. Dodge, 32 Ark. 453 Booth v. Cook, 20 Ill. 1:9; Holbrook v. Nichol, 36 Id. 161; Miller v. Henshaw, 4 Dana, 325; Kemper v. Hughes, 7 B. Mon. 255; Buel v. Irwin, 25 Mich. 145; Duncan v. Duncan, 1 Watts, 322; Barney v. Sutton, 2 Id. 31; McCreary v. McCreary, 9 Rich. Eq.34; Ballard v. Perry, 28 Texas, 347; Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 51 Id. 51.

In a number of cases, however, it has been held that a seal is not essential to the validity of a certificate of acknowledgment taken by a notary, as elsewhere stated, unless required by an express statute: Powers v. Bryant, 7 Port. (S. C.) 9; Harrison v. Simons, 55 Ala. 510; Irving v. Brownell, 11 Ill. 402; Thompson v. Robertson, I B. Mon. 383; Farnum v. Buffum, 4 Cush. 260; Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 292; Fund Commissioners v. Glass, 17 Ohio, 542; Jaques v. Weeks, 7 Watts, 261; Second National Bank v. Chancellor, 9 W. Va. 69.

Where the officer had failed to attach his seal to the jurat of a deed of assignment, and both parties, acting in good faith, supposed the deed was properly acknowledged, he was allowed to attach his seal even after his