and secure his title. Nor would that construction be tolerated, which would make it depend on the acts or omissions of the clerk over whom he has no control, and with whom the law compels him to deposit his deed. A different construction would be attended with great mischief. The act having prescribed no time to the clerk to record a deed by spreading it on the record, its validity would be fluctuating and uncertain, and the object of the act defeated. Beverley v. Ellis, 22 Va. 102, 1 Rand. 102, 106-10 (1822). Cf. also Virginia Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Glenn, 99 Va. 460, 39 S.E. 186, 140 (Va.1901) (“[Grantee] had done all the law required when its deed was left with the clerk for recordation and in a condition to be recorded.”); Thomas v. Stuart’s Ex’r, 91 Va. 694, 22 S.E. 511 (Va.1895) (<HOLDING>). Identical concerns are present in this case,
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 holding that deed was valid when the deed was conveyed to grantee corporation which formally incorporated after the conveyance holding that when a grantor delivered a deed to one of the cograntees therein telling her to keep it in a box and to deliver it to the proper parties at his death the title passed at that time irrespective of the place where the deed was kept holding merger by deed prohibits reformation when one of the parties learns of a mistake before closing and still signs the deed recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title