Jones v. Martin
This text of 16 Cal. 165 (Jones v. Martin) 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.
Opinion
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
We think the Court erred in excluding the deed in this case. Take the transcript altogether, and we think it shows sufficiently that the seal of the Notary was affixed to the instrument. The certificate asserts [167]*167that the Notary affixed his seal to it, and the words “ No seal,” in brackets in the margin, do not imply that there was no seal affixed, but axe a mere note of the Recorder of the place of the notarial seal, which he had probably no means of copying, nor was it necessary that he should transcribe it.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Cal. 165, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-martin-cal-1860.