It is to be observed that this note is confined to cases involving substitute conveyances which of themselves purport to convey the title, and does not include decisions dealing merely with instruments of confirmation which contain no granting clauses, but merely in terms confirm a former conveyance. For a discussion of the analogous question as to alteration of deeds after delivery, see the note to Waldron v. Waller, 32 L.R.A. l.V.S.) 284.
Requisites and effect generally
as to deeds pendente lite, see infra, V.
The substance, and not the form, is-the material thing in a ratifying instrument; and where the deed is voidable merely, it is not necessary that the ratifying instrument observe all the formalities required of the deed, such as, for instance, attesting witnesses, so long as the instrument is sufficiently full and formal to show a distinct purpose on the part of the grantor to treat the former deed as his act and abide by it. Hadden v. Lamed, 87 Ga. 634, 13 S. E. 806. In tliis case, a wife, who had conveyed property to her husband unsuccessfully attacked the deed upon the ground that at the timeof its execution she was nan compos mentis? and sought in this way to defeat a levy of execution upon the land to satisfy a demand against tho husband.
Where title is vested by delivery of * deed to the grantee, it can be devested only by a deed, signed and sealed by the grantee, and not by tho mere handing back of the deed; and a new deed in such circumstances,, from the grantor to the grantee, passes, nothing. Mead v. Pinyard, 154 U. S. 620, 23 L. ed. 501, 14 Sup. Ct Rep. 1205. (Generally as to effect of destruction, cancelation, or redelivery to grantor of delivered but unrecorded deed, see note to Matheson v. Matheson, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1167.)
So, where a deed which has been lost isconfirmed by a second deed executed for the express purpose of taking the place of the first deed, and reciting that it is of the same tenor, the second deed is merely confirmatory and of itself conveys no title, and therefore it is not contradicted or enlarged by evidence that language in the two deeds was identical. Scalpen v. Blanchard, 1ST Mass. 73, 72 N. E. 346.
A deed which is made avowedly for the purpose of curing defects in a previous conveyance, and which recites such conveyance anda probability that it was ineffectual, and that it is the consideration of the subsequent conveyance, will be held operative as aconfirmation or as a deed of bargain, and sale, and effect will be given to it according to the intention of the parties. Fauntleroy v. Dunn, 3 B. Mon. 594.
And a correction deed prevails over the deed corrected in respect of the boundaries^ of the land conveyed. Builders Mortg. Co. v. Berkowitz, 134 App. Div. 136, 118 N. Y. Supp. 804.
No United States revenue stamps, under a statute requiring a stamp on all deeds conveying land or other realty “sold,” are required upon a deed executed after the revenue act went into effect, for the purpose of correcting an imperfect description and confirming the grant in a deed executed before the revenue act went into effect.