Vlautin v. Bumpus

35 Cal. 214
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1868·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Sawyer, C. J. :

The appeal is from the judgment in an action on a promissory note, without any statement. It does not appear when the payment on the note, admitted and allowed, was made, and it is, therefore, impossible to tell from the judgment roll whether the judgment is for too large a sum or not.

The only other point made, is, that the common property of husband and wife is not liable for the sole debt of the wife, created before her marriage. But it is otherwise settled in Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 308.

Judgment affirmed, and the remittitur directed to issue forthwith.

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

Vlautin v. Bumpus, 35 Cal. 214 (Cal. 1868).

35 Cal. 214 (Vlautin v. Bumpus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medical Finance Ass'n v. Allum
66 P.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1937)
Johnson v. Taylor
4 P.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1931)
Floyd v. District Court of the Sixth Judicial District
36 Nev. 349 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1913)
Armantage v. Superior Court
81 P. 1033 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Henley v. Wilson
70 P. 21 (California Supreme Court, 1902)