Joost

Joost v. Craig

Good Law
131 Cal. 504·1901 Cal. LEXIS 1162·63 P. 840
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 1901S.F. No. 1592.California2,110 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an action against a notary public and his sureties for damages charged to have resulted from the negligence of the notary.

As appears from the record, in April, 1891, one Fisher, who was a real estate broker in San Francisco, as such broker offered to sell to plaintiff ten lots of land situate in San Mateo county, then standing in the name of Charles A. Anderson. The lots were part of the Abbey Homestead Association’s lands. Plaintiff was familiar with these lands and had bought a portion of them. He contracted with Fisher at once for the property, agreeing to pay one thousand dollars for it, conditioned, as usual, upon the title. He had an abstract made, and finding that the title of Anderson was good, informed the broker that he would pay whenever he received a deed from Anderson properly executed.

A deed was produced, apparently executed by Charles A. Anderson, and acknowledged before the defendant notary, and certified by him as follows:

In the body of the deed the grantor is described as “Charles A. Anderson, of Eedwood City, county of San Mateo, state of California.”

It turned out that the de'ed was a forgery, and was not executed or acknowdedged by Charles A.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.