Jones v. Martin

Decided July 1, 1860

California Supreme Court · decided 1860-07-01

Suit by plaintiff against William Martin, to set aside a warrantee deed executed by defendant to plaintiff, and to recover the consideration given therefor, to wit: five hundred dollars cash, and a promissory note of plaintiff for five hundred dollars more, on the ground of failure of title—the defendant having previously conveyed the land, as was claimed, to other persons.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We think the court erred in excluding the deed in this case. Take the transcript all together, and we think it shows sufficiently that the seal of the notary was affixed to the instrument. The certificate asserts that 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 are 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.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Davis v. Seybold

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 1922

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

¶2We 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 *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.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded.