to prevent abuses and deceits by mortgages, and the purchase of pretended titles."

And under this preamble it was enacted:

"That after the first day of May next, no estate of inheritance or freehold, or any declaration or limitation of use, or any estate for above seven years, shall pass or take effect, except the deed or conveyance by which the same shall be intended to pass or take effect, shall be acknowledged in the provincial court, or before one of the justices thereof, in the county court or before two justices of the same county where the lands, tenements or hereditaments conveyed by such deed or conveyance do lie, and be also enrolled in the records of the same county, or the provincial court, as the case may be, within six months after the date of such deed or conveyance."

By chapter 10 of the acts of November, 1779, the six months referred to were declared to be calendar months.

In chapter 72, section 11, of the acts of 1785, the act which extended and defined the powers of the court of chancery of Maryland, it was enacted that, in case any deed

"hath been or shall hereafter be executed, to the validity of which recording is necessary by law, and such deed hath not been, or shall not be, recorded agreeably to law * * * that the chancellor shall have full power and authority to order and decree that such deed

*

shall be recorded."

*

However, there was other language in the section which protected purchasers without notice and creditors from the effect of such decrees of enrollment.

With the law relating to the registration of land titles in this condition, the act of December 19, 1791 (Kilty's Laws of Maryland, 1791, chap. 45), was passed in response to the memorial of the commissioners of the city of Washington, and the following provisions relative to the recording of deeds were contained therein:

By section 7 the commissioners were authorized to appoint a clerk for recording deeds to lands within the territory ceded by Maryland to the United States. This clerk was required to

"provide a proper book for the purpose, and therein record, in a strong legible hand, all deeds, duly acknowledged, of lands in the said territory, delivered to him to be recorded, and in the same book make due entries of all divisions and allotments of lands and lots made by the commissioners in pursuance of this act, and certificates granted by them of sales, and the purchase money having been paid."

The section further provided for the preservation of the records and the tenure and fees of the clerk.

Section 8 provided:

"That acknowledgments of deeds made before a person in the manner and certified as the laws of this State direct, or made before, and certified by, either of the commissioners, shall be effectual; and that no deed hereafter to be made of or for lands within that part of the said territory, which lies within this State, shall operate as a legal conveyance, nor shall any lease for more than seven years be effectual, unless the deed shall have been acknowledged as aforesaid, and delivered to the said clerk to be recorded within six calendar months from the date thereof.”

On December 23, 1792 (Kilty's Laws, 1792, chap. 59), another act was passed by the legislature of Maryland, which reads as follows:

"Whereas doubts have arisen upon the act to which this is a supplement, whether it be essential to the validity of deeds and other conveyances of lands in that part of the territory of Columbia which lies within this State, that the same be recorded in the manner prescribed by the laws of this State before the passage of the said act; to remove which doubts

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That all deeds and other conveyances of lands lying within the said territory, and recorded agreeably to the directions and provisions of the said act by the clerk appointed in the manner therein provided for the recording of deeds within said territory, shall be as good, valid and sufficient, in law, for the purposes of passing the estates therein mentioned, and for all other purposes, as if the same were also recorded in the manner prescribed by the laws of this State, before

the passage of the said act for the recording of deeds and other conveyances of land within this State."

On December 28, 1793 (Kilty's Laws, November, 1793, chap. 58), another act supplemental to the act of December 17, 1791, was passed, section 1 of which reads as follows:

"That the certificates granted, or which may be granted, by the said Commissioners, or any two of them, to purchasers of lots in the said city, with acknowledgment of the payment of the whole purchase money, and interest, if any shall have arisen thereon, and recorded agreeably to the directions of the act concerning the territory of Columbia and city of Washington, shall be sufficient and effectual to vest the legal estate in the purchasers, their heirs and assigns, according to the import of such certificates, without any deed or formal conveyance."

The acts of the Maryland legislature above cited constituted the law of the District of Columbia as to the recording of deeds until May 31, 1832, when an act was passed by Congress (4 Stat. 520) providing for the form of executing deeds for lands lying in the District of Columbia when the owners of such lands were residents elsewhere. tion 1 of this act prescribed the method of acknowledgment and certification of such deeds, and provided that if a deed after having been executed, acknowledged, and certified as required by law

*

Sec

"shall be recorded amongst the land records of the county of Washington * * * within six calendar months from the day of its date * * such deed shall be good and effectual for the purpose or purposes therein mentioned."

This act recognized and followed the requirement of the Maryland law that a deed must be recorded within six months after the day of its date in order to have legal effect; but by the act of April 20, 1838 (5 Stat. 226), the law was changed so that instruments of conveyance, except deeds of trust and mortgages, delivered to the clerk to be recorded within six months were to take effect and be valid as to all persons from the time the deed was acknowledged, but deeds of trust and mortgages and all other conveyances not delivered for record within six months after

being sealed and delivered were to take effect as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for value without notice only from the time when they were delivered to the clerk to be recorded.

By the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 807), any question as to the sufficiency of the commissioner's certificates in the matter of acknowledgment was quieted by the following provision:

"That no deed or conveyance heretofore made, in pursuance of law, of squares or lots of public land in the city of Washington, by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, or any other authorized officer, shall be deemed invalid in law, for the want of an acknowledgment by said Commissioner or other authorized officer before such judicial officers as deeds of real property made between individuals are required by law to be acknowledged."

The certificate of purchase issued by the commissioners to Isaac Polock does not purport on its face to convey the legal title. It recites the purchase, the payment of the purchase price, and that Polock, his heirs and assigns were entitled to the lots in fee simple, but it contains no clause vesting such title in said Polock. Therefore, if the legal title was ever vested in the purchaser, it was by virtue of the act of December 28, 1793, which provided that certificates in which were acknowledged the full payment of the purchase money and interest, and which were "recorded agreeably to the directions of the act concerning the territory of Columbia and city of Washington"

"shall be sufficient to vest the legal estate in the purchasers, their heirs and assigns, according to the import of such certificate, without any deed or formal conveyance."

Therefore, if this certificate was not recorded as required. by the act mentioned, it did not pass the legal estate. Before the passage of this act of December 28, 1793, these certificates were not deeds of conveyances, and the only law with reference to their registration was that provision in section 7 of the act of December 19, 1791, which required them to be entered in the book kept by

the clerk, with the amount of money paid and the division and allotments of land; in which book was also to be recorded all deeds of conveyance. It is doubtful whether it was here meant that the entire certificate should be entered, or only a memorandum mentioning the lots, to whom sold, and the amount paid. But by said act of 1793 these certificates became, for all purposes, equivalent to deeds purporting to convey fee-simple titles; and hence it is reasonable to suppose that it was intended by the legislature that the same law should apply to the recording of these certificates as then governed the recording of deeds conveying such titles; and when it was required by said act that in order to pass the legal title the certificate should be recorded agreeably to the act concerning the territory of Columbia, I think reference was had to the provision of that act relating to the recording of deeds and not to the entering of the certificates. This view is strengthened by the fact that it was clearly indicated by the act of December 23, 1792, that the requirements with reference to recording instruments applied not only to deeds, but also to all "other conveyances of lands."

By section 8 of the act of 1791, it was expressly provided that no deed for lands lying within the territory to which the act was applicable should operate as a legal conveyance unless it should be delivered to the clerk to be recorded within six calendar months from the date thereof; and it was to this provision, I think, that reference was made in the said act of 1793 in speaking of the recording of certificates.

It is insisted that the clause in section 5 of the act of 1791, to wit:

"And all the lots and parcels which have been or shall be sold to raise money as a donation as aforesaid, shall remain and be to the purchasers, according to the terms and conditions of their respective purchase".

made certificates valid, regardless of whether they were ever entered or recorded; but I do not think that this general clause has any relation to the question of registration; and, furthermore, this certificate here in question did not,