With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the presence of no witnesses. Milligan was alone in the waiting area when he signed. The signature of the witness, which appeared on the document, was placed after defendant had left the office. Moreover, counsel for plaintiff certified that Milligan appeared before her when he did not. Since Section 42 clearly was not complied with, the attestation was also defective. C. Despite The Defective Acknowledgment And Attestation, The Mortgage Is Valid As Between The Parties To The Instrument, In the Absence Of Fraud And/Or Duress The next issue is whether the defective acknowledgment and attestation affect the validity of the mortgage instrument itself, in the absence of fraud and/or duress. Milligan asserts that acknowledgment and the attestation after he had (Idaho Ct. App. 1985) (<HOLDING>). Also see, In re Estate of Frutiger, 62 Misc.

A: holding that the fact that a deed is not properly acknowledged does not vitiate the validity of the transfer between the grantor and grantee
B: holding a quitclaim deed yields only such interest in land as the grantor had at the time of the making of such deed
C: holding when a deed provides grantee would take subject to the state of facts which a personal inspection or accurate survey would disclose grantee has no claim against grantor for power line easement
D: holding that grantee who delivered the deed in proper form duly and legally acknowledged to clerk of proper office for recordation had done all he could do and all the law required him to do and deed would not be voided by clerks mistake in transcription
A.