Hopkins v. Delaney

California Supreme Court

Hopkins v. Delaney

8 Cal. 85, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 300

DecidedJuly 1, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cal. 85 (Hopkins v. Delaney) 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

Hopkins v. Delaney, 8 Cal. 85, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 300 (Cal. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The plaintiff filed his bill to foreclose two mortgages. The defendants set up a claim of homestead.

The only questions raised by the record are : First, whether the recorder of San Francisco was authorized by law to take acknowledgments of conveyances, which authority is expressly given by statute; and, Second, whether the acknowledgment is sufficient. The officer certifies that the parties were known to him; the appellant contends that the word “ personally ” should have been used. We have before decided that such a certificate was sufficient. The points on which the appellant relies are frivolous, and the appeal was evidently taken for delay.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

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

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The plaintiff filed his bill to foreclose two mortgages. The defendants set up a claim of homestead.

The only questions raised by the record are : First, whether the recorder of San Francisco was authorized by law to take acknowledgments of conveyances, which authority is expressly given by statute; and, Second, whether the acknowledgment is sufficient. The officer certifies that the parties were known to him; the appellant contends that the word “ personally ” should have been used. We have before decided that such a certificate was sufficient. The points on which the appellant relies are frivolous, and the appeal was evidently taken for delay.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cal. 85, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-delaney-cal-1857.