This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 Excerpt: ... power from the statute, acts under a special commission for that particular case, and after taking the acknowledgment and making and delivering the return, his functions cease, and he is discharged from all further authority, and cannot alter or amend his certificate. Mr. Justice Baldwin, who delivered the opinion in that case, thus referred to the principal case: 'We do not deem it necessary to criticise the case of Jordan v. Corey in 2 Ind. 385. That case we think wholly unsupported by authority.'" And in Enterprise Transit Co. v. Sheedy, 103 Pa. St. 492, 49 Am. Rep. 130, it was held: "This attempt to impart life to a void instrument has the merit of novelty. When Mrs. Sheedy affixed her name to the written instrument and acknowledged it, the acknowledgment was confessedly so defective as not to bind her or pass her title to the land. It was then delivered, and eleven days thereafter recorded. More than five months after the acknowledgment was actually taken, and the certificate thereof, signed by the natary public, indorsed thereon, he wrote and signed a second certificate of acknowledgment. The parties to the instrument did not again come before him, but he certifies what occurred months before. To this last certificate he adds facts not contained in his former certificate, with a view and for the purpose of making valid the writing of a married woman which was then invalid. Effect cannot be given to this latter action of the notary public." Citing many cases. See also McMullen v. Eagan, 21 W. Va. 233. The doctrine is strongly stated in Merritt v. Yates, 71 111. 639, 22 Am. Rep. 128: "But we are aware of no statute or common-law practice which authorizes, or in any manner sanctions, the right of justices of the peace to amend their ...