certificate of a notary has any effect,

as evidence of the execution of a deed; and the statute requires it to be under the official seal of the officer. A certificate, which is not verified by his seal of office, derives no force or efficacy from the statute. We cannot say that the seal is a mere formality that adds nothing to the dignity or solemnity of the instrument. It is enough that the law positively requires it. The propriety of the requisition rests with the legislature. A notary is empowered to take the acknowledgment of a deed and certify the same under his official seal. He has no power to do it in any other manner. If he has no notarial seal, with which to authenticate his official acts, he is destitute of any authority to certify the acknowledgment of a deed. He must procure an official seal, before the authority, conferred on him to take the acknowledgment of deeds, attaches. He cannot make use of a scroll or private seal for the purpose of authenticating a certificate of acknowledgment. The provisions of law allowing certain officers to use private seals until they should be provided with public seals, had no application to a notary. He has to provide himself with an official seal. It is not furnished him by the public. The statute is silent as to the form and character of the seal. He may adopt a seal, with such an inscription as his judgment may dictate or his fancy suggest. It must, however, be capable of making a definite and uniform impression on the paper on which the certificate is written, or on some tenacious substance attached thereto, so that when a question arises as to the genuineness of an authenti. cation, it may be determined by reference to the seal in the possession of the officer." Consequently the acknowledgment of a deed by a

married woman, not having been attested by the seal of a notary, was held invalid. (See also, citations, infra.)

Kind of seal. A notary public cannot use a court seal to authenticate his official acts: McKeller v. Peck, 39 Texas, 381. The purpose of his having a seal, is to authenticate his acts, and there is no other reason for his having one: Stephens v. Williams, 46 Iowa, 510; see Tunis v. Withrow, 10 Id. 305. The seal must be such as will make a distinct impression upon paper; and a mere scroll in ink upon the paper or wafer, is not sufficient: Stephens v. Williams, 46 Iowa, 540; citing Gage v. Dubuque & Pacific R. R., 11 Id. 310; Hinckley v. O'Farrell, 4 Blackf. 185; Mason v. Brock, supra; Richard v. Boller, 6 Daly, 460; s. c. 51 How. Pr. 371; and the certificate of a county clerk, who is authorized to certify to the official character of the notary, will not cure the absence of his seal from his certificate: Stephens v. Williams, supra. A printed seal is of no effect: Richard v .Boller, supra; Ross v. Bedell, 5 Duer, 462. Concerning the form of the seal, see the quotation, supra, from Mason v. Brock.

In Collins v. Boyd, 5 Dana, 316, it was held, that an officer might affix to a certificate of acknowledgment, a seal which he was accustomed to use as his official seal, though he described it in the attestation clause as "his private seal," no seal of the office having been provided.

In Lange v. State, 95 Ind. 114, the seal used had the following only upon it: "Notary Public, Seal, Indiana." The statute required "such a seal as will stamp upon paper, a distinct impression, in words or letters sufficiently indicating his official character, to which may be added such other device as he may choose." The court

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 Ill. 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 wax. "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. 546.

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,'

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, especially 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; affirming 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 certificate 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 Huey 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 authenticity. 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 different opinion. The decisions relative to the adjudications of foreign muni

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 Ill. 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 wax. "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. 546.

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,'

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, especially 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; affirming 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 certificate 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 Huey 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