Poole v. Gerrard

6 Cal. 71
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1856·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The Court below erred in deciding that the deed of the plaintiff conveyed all her interest in the property. In Simpers & Crammer v. Sloan, (5 Cal. R.,) at the October Term, 1855, we held “ that a feme covert has no power to make a contract.”

[73]*73To make a valid sale of the homestead requires the joint deed of husband and wife. The husband must make the contract and the wife must assent to it by an examination separate and apart from her husband. This is the mode pointed out by the statute, and it must be strictly pursued. Cook v. McChristian, 4 Cal. R.

It seems therefore in this case, that both the deeds separately executed, of Poole and his wife, are invalid.

On the other hand, the wife has no right to sue alone. In Taylor v. Hargous, (4 Cal. R.,) we decided that the homestead was a joint estate in husband and wife, with the right of survivorship. It results from that decision that it is neither common property, which would enable the husband to sue alone, nor is it the separate estate of the wife, in which case only she would be enabled to sue alone.

She should have joined her husband in the action and he would not have been estopped by a void deed.

The Court therefore erred in overruling the demurrer.

The judgment below is right upon this ground, but to prevent any question of pre-adjudication in another suit, it is most proper here to reverse the judgment, and also the order overruling the demurrer, and remand the case with instructions to the Court below to sustain the demurrer.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Poole v. Gerrard, 6 Cal. 71 (Cal. 1856).

6 Cal. 71 (Poole v. Gerrard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wise v. Thomas
188 P.2d 444 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1947)
Dixon v. Russell
70 P.2d 196 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
Fetterman v. Franklin
1922 OK 331 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Hughes v. Latour Creek Railroad
166 P. 219 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1917)
Whelan v. Adams
1914 OK 504 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Perley v. Woodbury
78 A. 1073 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1911)
Hannon v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co.
107 P. 335 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Cushman v. Davis
64 A. 456 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1906)
Hart v. Church
58 P. 910 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Howell, Jewett & Co. v. McCrie
36 Kan. 636 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)
Guiod v. Guiod
14 Cal. 506 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Gee v. Moore
14 Cal. 472 (California Supreme Court, 1859)
Dorsey v. McFarland
7 Cal. 342 (California Supreme Court, 1857)