Wilson  V.  Twitty.  3  Hawk.  44.  Thompson  v.  Hodges^  8
Hawks  51.  Davis  v.  Abbott^  3  Ired.  130.  It  is  admitted
by  the  defence,  that  the  land  was  liable  to  be  sold  under
the  executions,  the  objections  to  the  amendment  of  the
attachments,  and  the  one  we  are  now  considering,  being
removed.  The  owners  of  the  land  do  not  complain,  and
the  purchaser  is  seeking  to  enforce  his  rights  under  it

This  brings  us  to  the  last  objection,  made  by  the  defen-
dant to  the  plaintiff's  right  of  recovery.  He  alleges  the
title  to  be  in  himself,  and,  to  prove  it,  produced  on  the  trial
a  deed  (rem  Hixie  Jones,  and  her  husband  Jas.  C.  Jones,  to
one  Harrison  under  whom  he  claims.  It  is  admitted  that
without  a  private  examination  of  a  feme  covert,  had,  in
in  one  of  the  modes  pointed  out  by  the  act  of  the  Gene-
ral Assembly,  her  deed  conveys  no  estate  in  her  lands*
In  the  case  of  Burgess  and  others  v.  Wilsont  2  Dev.  8O89
the  manner  in  which,  in  every  case,  the  private  examina-
tion is  to  be  conducted,  is  so  fully  and  distinctly  pointed
out,  that  we  content  ourselves  by  referring  to  it.
The  very  point  we  are  now  called  on  to  decide  is  settled
in  that  case,  that  when  the  wife  is  capable  of  attending
Court,  the  deed  shall  be  acknowledged  by  both  husband
and  wife  in  Court,  and  then  the  wife  be  privily  examined
by  some  one  of  that  Court.  In  the  case  before  us,  Mrs.
Jones  was  present,  but  there  was  no  acknowledgment  of
the  execution  of  the  deed,  in  Court,  either  by  her  or  her
10


74  SUPREME  COURT.
Brookflhife  «•  Brookshir*.
