¶1I agree that the plaintiff should be regarded as a single woman. The property to which she asserts title was acquired by her in this state. Her husband has never been within the United States. For *138twenty odd years she has repudiated her marital relations, and conducted herself without regard to them. Under such circumstances, to permit her to fall back upon them and avoid her deed, on the ground that the certificate of the notary does not recite that she was examined “separate and apart” from her husband, with whom she has held no relations for more than twenty years, and who has never been in this country, seems to me to be beyond all reason. I therefore concur in the conclusion reached by the Chief Justice.
68 Cal. 135
Hand v. Hand
Decided November 30, 1885
California Supreme Court · decided 1885-11-30
<p>Marbled Woman — Deed,—Acknowledgment—Estoppel. —The plaintiff is a married woman, her marriage having been contracted in England in the year 1855, of which country her husband then was, and ever since has been, a resident. Since the year 1863, the plaintiff has been living in California, separate and apart from her husband, and up to the year 1878, in meretricious relations with the defendant, passing as his wife, and completely ignoring her marriage. In 1873, she conveyed to the defendant certain real property acquired by her in California. The certificate of acknowledgment to the deed of conveyance was in the ordinary form, and not in that prescribed by the statute for the acknowledgment of a married woman. Held, that the plaintiff could not avoid the deed on account of the defective acknowledgment.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1894
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1885-11-30
View the full empirical analysis of this case →