De Wolf v. Bailey

California Supreme Court

De Wolf v. Bailey

1 Cal. Unrep. 37

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1856

DocketNo. 1148

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 37 (De Wolf v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Wolf v. Bailey, 1 Cal. Unrep. 37 (Cal. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

MUBBAY, C. J.

— The errors assigned by the appellant are not supported by the record. The question of homestead was never raised in the court below. The court properly admitted the note and mortgage in evidence. The mortgage would have been equally valid if it had not been signed by the wife, and the note was admissible as evidence of the debt of the husband. The decree does not cut off the right of redemption from the purchaser, under the provisions of the statute.

Judgment affirmed with costs and ten per cent damages.

I concur: Terry, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MUBBAY, C. J.

— The errors assigned by the appellant are not supported by the record. The question of homestead was never raised in the court below. The court properly admitted the note and mortgage in evidence. The mortgage would have been equally valid if it had not been signed by the wife, and the note was admissible as evidence of the debt of the husband. The decree does not cut off the right of redemption from the purchaser, under the provisions of the statute.

Judgment affirmed with costs and ten per cent damages.

I concur: Terry, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-wolf-v-bailey-cal-1856.