(after stating the facts). § 2756 of The Code, directs the manner in which entry-takers shall be elected, and the following section provides that, in cases of vacancies, the Register of Deeds shall discharge the duties of entry-taker.
The entry-taker is required to give bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, and to take an oath of office. Iiis duties are clearly defined. § 2765 prescribes the manner in which entries and grants shall be made and issued. By re^ ference to that section, it will be seen that none of its provisions have been complied with by the plaintiffs.
The alleged entry was not made by the entry-taker, and the statute does not authorize him to appoint a deputy, and if it did, the evidence shows that the plaintiff was not authorized to take or make the entry. It is true that the plaintiff testifies “ that he made the writing on the books, in the presence of the said Harbison, in the Register’s office,” but he does not say that it was authorized by the entry-taker^ and Harbison testifies “ that he never deputed or authorized any one to take entries.”
The case of Maxwell v. Wallace, 3 Ired. Eq., 593, cited by counsel for the defendant, is decisive of this case. There the claimant went to the entiy-taker, and the entry-taker being absent, he applied to his wife to take and make the entry, which she did, but the writing was not signed by the claimant, and was not left with the wife, but was carried away by him.
It tvas proved by the entry-taker himself, that his wife had often taken entries, and that he had authorized her, in his *89absence, to enter them on his books. Nash, Judge, speaking for the Court, said : tk The plaintiff’s claim rests upon the assumed fact, that he made an entry before the defendant, as required by law, and upon it procured a grant for the land to issue to himself, and that the defendant, with a knowledge of his priority, made an entry of the same land. As he has never made an entry, such as the law required, his equity has never arisen.”
In the case before us, the plaintiff “ has never made an entry, such as the law requires,” and the entry found on the books, in the office of the Register of Deeds, was unauthorized and of no validity whatever. Not being a proper entry, it was not constructive notice, and there was no evidence of actual notice, and if there had been, the authority of Maxwell v. Wallace, supra, to the reasoning in which we refer, seems conclusive against the plaintiff.
There is no error. Affirmed.