Benedict v. Bunnell

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

This was an action in the Court below for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain premises, in the city of San Francisco, executed by defendant, Bunnell. Bunnell answered, and thereon set up that at the date of the execution of the mortgage, he was a married man, and that the mortgaged premises were subject to his homestead right. On the trial of the cause, the Court sent a number of special issues to the jury, who answered them as follows: 1.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1911

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 →

Burnett, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.

¶2The defendant executed a note and mortgage to plaintiff. At the date of the note and mortgage, the defendant was a married man, but his wife was not then a resident of this State.

¶3The only question in this case was settled in the case of Cary v. Tice and wife, decided at the last term of this Court. “ The premises never were impressed with the character of a homestead until actual residence upon them hy the family/-’

¶4So much of the judgment of the Court below as is appealed from is reversed, and that Court will enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.