Jones v. Martin

California Supreme Court

Jones v. Martin

16 Cal. 165, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 198

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1860·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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.

Jones v. Martin, 16 Cal. 165, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 198 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

16 Cal. 165 (Jones v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related