going instrument as parties thereto, acknowledged to me that they signed, sealed, and executed the same as their own free and voluntary act and deed, and as the free and voluntary act and deed of the said company, for the purposes and objects therein stated. In witness, etc.

day of

a commissioner of the state of

A. D. 18-,

in and for

Be it remembered that on this before me, the state of, residing in the city of, personally appeared -, the president of the Loan and Trust Company, of the city of and - the actuary of the same company, to me respectively known, who, being by me severally duly sworn, did depose and say that he, the said —, resides in said city of ; that he, the said resides in said city of; that he, said, is the president, and he, said, is the actuary, of the said company; that they know the corporate seal of said company, that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is such corporate seal, that it was so affixed thereto by order of the board of directors of said company; and that they, the said and signed their names thereto, by the like order, as president and actuary of said company, respectively; and acknowledged that they executed the foregoing instrument as their free act and deed and the free act and deed of said company. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written.

day of, A. D. 18—,

Be it remembered that on this before me, a notary public in and for said county, at my office in said city of, personally came, president of the Railroad Company, the corporation described in the foregoing instrument as the party of the first part thereto, and who is personally well known to me; and he, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he is, and at the time of the execution of said instrument was, the president, and that is, and then

was, the secretary of the said company; that he knows the corporate seal of said company, and the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument as such is said corporate seal; that the said seal was so affixed by authority of the board of directors of said company; and that he, as president aforesaid, signed, and the said, as secretary aforesaid, attested, the said instrument, by like authority. And the said president as aforesaid, acknowledged

the execution of said instrument as the act and deed of the said - Railroad Company, for the uses and purposes therein expressed. In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal, at my office in the said city of the day and year aforesaid.

Requirements of Witnesses to Deeds of Real Property.

ALABAMA: Conveyances must be attested by one witness, or, when the grantor can. not write, by two. Conveyances by married women must also be attested by two witnesses, but in all these cases, if acknowledged, no witness is necessary; but to prove without acknowledgment, two witnesses must attest. Code 1886, §§ 1789, 1790,

1894.

ARIZONA TERRITORY: Unless acknowledged, two witnesses necessary. R. S. 1887, § 220.

ARKANSAS: Two witnesses required. Dig. of Stats. 1884, § 650.
CALIFORNIA: No witness is necessary.

COLORADO: No witness required.

CONNECTICUT: To be attested by two witnesses. G. S. 1888, § 2954.

DELAWARE: One witness necessary.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: One witness is customary.

FLORIDA: Two witnesses required. Laws 1873, p. 18; Dig. Laws 1881, c. 32, §§ 16,

148.

GEORGIA: Two witnesses, of whom one should be the officer who takes the acknowledgment. Code 1882, § 2690.

IDAHO: One witness necessary to prove without acknowledgment. R. S. 1887, § 2964.

ILLINOIS: No witness required.

INDIANA: No witness required.

IOWA: No witness required.

KANSAS: No witness required, except to make proof of deed. G. S. 1889, § 1112. KENTUCKY: Two witnesses required to prove a deed not acknowledged. G. S. 1889, § 15.

LOUISIANA: Two witnesses are required.

MAINE: No witness necessary, except to prove execution, but one is usual. R. S. 1883, § 18.

MARYLAND: To be attested by at least one witness. Pub. G. L. 1888, art. 21, § 10.

MASSACHUSETTS: No witness necessary, but one is usual.

MICHIGAN: To be executed in presence of two witnesses. Howell's G. S. 1882, § 5658.

MINNESOTA: To be attested by two witnesses. G. S. 1878, c. 40, § 7.
MISSISSIPPI: One or more subscribing witnesses. Code 1871, p. 503.
MISSOURI: No witness required.

MONTANA: Witness only necessary to make proof without acknowledgment.
NEBRASKA One witness required. Comp. Laws 1881 and 1885, c. 73, § 1.

NEVADA: No witness required. When signature is by mark, one is necessary. G. S. 1885, § 2666.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Two or more witnesses required. G. S. 1878, c. 135, § 3.
NEW JERSEY: One witness usual, but not necessary.

NEW YORK: One witness necessary.

NORTH CAROLINA: Witness not required when acknowledged, but one or more to prove without.

NORTH DAKOTA: No witness required. Civ. Code 1883, § 622.

OHIO: Two witnesses are requisite. R. S. 1890, § 4106.

OREGON: TWO witnesses required for a deed made within the state. Annot. Laws 1887, § 3011.

PENNSYLVANIA: One or more witnesses usual, but not necessary unless grantor signs by mark. Brightly's Purdon's Dig. 1883, p. 569.

RHODE ISLAND: No witness necessary.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Two witnesses required. G. S. 1882, § 1775.
SOUTH DAKOTA: No witness required. Civ. Code, 1883, § 622.
TENNESSEE: No witness required when deed is acknowledged.

TEXAS: No witness required when deed is acknowledged. Two are necessary to prove a deed. R. S. 1879, art. 554.

Comp. Laws 1888, § 2610.

UTAH TERRITORY: One witness.
VERMONT: Two witnesses required. R. L. 1880, § 1927.

VIRGINIA: Two witnesses required to prove, but none when acknowledged. Code 1887, §§ 2437, 2500.

WASHINGTON: Two witnesses required.

177.

Code 1881, § 2312; Laws 1885-86, p.

WEST VIRGINIA: No witness required when acknowledged. Two to prove without. Code 1887, c. 73, § 2.

WISCONSIN: Two witnesses required. Annot. Stats. 1889, § 2216.

WYOMING: One witness required. R. S. 1887, § 8: Laws 1882, c. 1, § 8.

Requirements of Seals to Deeds of Real Property.

ALABAMA: Seal not necessary. If the instrument purports to be under seal, it is the same in effect as if a seal were affixed. Code 1886, §§ 1840, 2694.

ARIZONA TERRITORY: No seal or scroll necessary except in case of corporations. R. S. 1887, § 2783.

ARKANSAS: Seals not required. Const. 1874, Schedule § 1; Dig. Stats. 1884, p. 84.

CALIFORNIA: All distinction betwen sealed and unsealed instruments is abolished. Civil Code 1872, § 1629.

COLORADO: No seal nor scroll is necessary. Laws 1887, p. 228.

CONNECTICUT: A seal is necessary; but the word "seal" or the letters [L. s.] are equivalent. G. S. 1888, §§ 1085, 2954.

DELAWARE: A scroll answers for a seal.

FLORIDA: A scrawl inclosing the word "seal" is effectual as such. 2 Fla. 421. GEORGIA: A seal includes impressions on the paper itself, or on wax or wafers; a scrawl also answers for a seal. Code 1882, § 5.

IDAHO: A scroll, or the word "seal," against the signature, may be used for a seal. R. S. 1887, § 5989.

ILLINOIS: A seal is required, but a scroll is sufficient. Annot. Stats. 1885, c. 29, § 1.

INDIANA: A seal or scrawl not requisite. R. S. 1888, § 2999.

Iowa: Seal not required. Annot. Code 1885, § 3289.

KANSAS: Neither a seal nor a scroll is necessary. G. S. 1889, § 1103.

KENTUCKY: Neither a seal nor a scroll is necessary. G. S. 1888, c. 22, § 2.

LOUISIANA: No seal or scroll is required.

MAINE: A seal is requisite.

MARYLAND: A scroll answers the place of a seal.

MASSACHUSETTS: A seal is requisite.

60

DOWER AND CURTESY.

MICHIGAN: A scroll answers for a seal, but a deed is not invalid for want of a seal or scroll. Howell's G. S. 1882, § 7510.

MINNESOTA: A seal is necessary, but a scroll has the same effect. G. S. 1878, c. 40, § 31.

MISSISSIPPI: No seal or scroll is necessary. R. Code 1880, §§ 993-996.

MISSOURI: A scrawl may be used instead of a seal in an instrument expressed to be sealed. R. S. 1889, § 2388.

MONTANA: No seal or scroll required. Comp. Stats. 1887, c. 107, § 1963. NEBRASKA: No seal or scroll necessary. Comp. Laws 1881 and 1885, c. 81, § 1. NEVADA: Neither a seal nor scroll is necessary. G. S. 1885, § 2667.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A seal is required. Scroll not sufficient. G. S. 1878, c. 135, § 3. NEW JERSEY: A seal required; a scroll is sufficient. Revision 1877, p. 387, § 52. NEW MEXICO TERRITORY: A scroll may be used instead of a seal. Comp. Laws 1884, §§ 2742, 2771.

NEW YORK: A seal is requisite. 4 R. S. 8th ed. 1889, p. 2451. A scroll will not do.

NORTH CAROLINA: A scroll answers for a seal.

NORTH DAKOTA: No seal necessary. Civ. Code, §§ 623, 927.

OHIO: Private seals are abolished. An official or corporate seal may be either of wax, wafer, or a scrawl. R. S. 1890, § 4.

OREGON: A scroll, or other sign made with a pen, answers for a seal. Annot. Laws 1887, § 752.

PENNSYLVANIA: An ink scroll is a good seal.

RHODE ISLAND: Seal required. Scroll not sufficient.

P. S. 1882, c. 24, § 14.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A seal is necessary. G. S. 1882, § 1775.
SOUTH DAKOTA: No seal necessary. Civ. Code, §§ 623, 927.

TENNESSEE: Private seals abolished except those of corporations. Code 1884, § 2478.

TEXAS: No seal necessary. Paschal's Dig art. 5087; R. S. 1879, art. 4487.

UTAH TERRITORY: A scroll may be used for a seal. Comp. Laws 1888, § 2645. VERMONT: A seal is requisite. R. L. 1880, § 1927.

VIRGINIA: A scroll operates as a seal. Code 1887, § 5.

WASHINGTON: A seal is required, but a scroll is equivalent. Laws 1877, p. 312. WEST VIRGINIA: A scroll operates as a seal. Code 1887, c. 13, § 15.

WISCONSIN: A scroll answers as a seal, but not in case of official or corporate seal. Annot. Stats. 1889, § 2215.

WYOMING: A scroll is a sufficient seal. R. S. 1887, § 27.

Dower and Curtesy exist in

ALABAMA: Code 1886, §§ 1892, 2353.

DELAWARE: R. S. 1874, c. 87, § 1, c. 85, § 1.

KENTUCKY: G. S. 1888, c. 52, art. 4, §§ 1, 2.

MAINE: R. S. 1883, c. 103, §§ 1, 14.
MARYLAND: Pub. G. L. 1888, art. 45.
MASSACHUSETTS: Pub Stats. c. 124, §§ 1, 3.
MICHIGAN: Howell's G. S. 1882, §§ 5733, 5770.

MISSOURI: 1 R. S. 1889, § 4513.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: G. L. 1878, c. 202, §§ 2, 14.

NEW JERSEY: R. S. 1877, pp. 320, 638.

NEW YORK: 4 R. S. 8th ed. 1889, pp. 2452, 2466.

NORTH CAROLINA: Code 1883, §§ 1838, 2103.

OREGON: Annot. Laws 1887, §§ 2954, 2993.

PENNSYLVANIA: Brightly's Purdon's Dig. 1883, pp. 631, 1153.

RHODE ISLAND: P. S. 1882, c. 166, §§ 11-14.
TENNESSEE: Code 1884, §§ 3244, 3351.
VERMONT: R. Laws, §§ 2215, 2229.
VIRGINIA: Code 1887, §§ 2267, 2286.

WEST VIRGINIA: Code 1887, c. 65, §§ 1, 15.
WISCONSIN: Annot. Stats. 1889, §§ 2159, 2180.

Dower exists, but there is no Curtesy, in

ARKANSAS: Dig. of Stats. 1884, § 2571.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Acts of 1868; 111 U. S. 731.

FLORIDA: Dig. of Stats. 1881, c. 95, § 1.

GEORGIA: Code 1882, § 1763.

ILLINOIS: The surviving husband or wife is endowed of a third part of all the lands whereof the deceased husband or wife was seized. Annot. Stats. 1885, c. 41,

§ 1.

OHIO: but husband is entitled to estate for life in one third of the real property of his deceased wife. 84 Laws, p. 135, Act of March 19, 1877.

SOUTH CAROLINA: G. S. 1882, c. 58.

UTAH TERRITORY: 1 Comp. Laws 1888, pp. 119-121, §§ 2530-2533.

Neither Dower nor Curtesy exist in

ARIZONA TERRITORY: but the surviving husband or wife is entitled to an estate for life in one third of the land of the intestate. R. S. 1887, § 1460.

CALIFORNIA: Civ. Code, § 173.

COLORADO: G. S. 1883, § 1039.

CONNECTICUT in all marriages contracted since April 20, 1877. Before that time the common law rule prevailed. G. S. 1888, § 2796.

IDAHO: Act January 6, 1875; R. S. 1887, § 2506.

INDIANA: R. S. 1888, § 2482.

Iowa: but the husband or wife surviving has a fee simple title to one third of all the estate possessed by the other during the marriage. Annot. Code 1885, § 3644. KANSAS: G. S. 1889, § 2619.

LOUISIANA: The Civil Law prevails.

MINNESOTA: but surviving husband or wife holds in fee one third of all lands of which the other was seized. G. S. 1878, c. 46, § 3; Supp. 1888, c. 46, § 3.

MISSISSIPPI: R. Code 1880, § 1170.

MONTANA: Probate Practice Act, §§ 550, 551; Comp. Stats. 1887, p. 399.

NEBRASKA but the Act of March 29, 1889, Laws 1889, c. 57, abolishing both, has been questioned as unconstitutional. Before that statute, both dower and curtesy existed. Comp. Stats. 1885, c. 23, §§ 1, 29.

NEVADA: G. S. 1885, § 505.

NEW MEXICO TERRITORY: The Civil Law prevails.

NORTH DAKOTA: C. Code 1883, §§ 83, 779.

SOUTH DAKOTA: C. Code 1883, §§ 83, 779.

TEXAS: The Civil Law prevails.

WASHINGTON: Code 1881, § 2414.

WYOMING: R. S. 1887. § 2221.