The facts are stated in the opinion.

James A. Devoto, Devoto & De Martini, and Devoto & Richardson, for Appellants.

The evidence overwhelmingly proves that Mrs. Cord was unconscious when the deed was made, and did not, and could not, request the notary to sign her name to the mark, and did not, and could not, acknowledge the execution. This overcomes the certificate of the notary, which is only prima facie, and not'conclusive evidence of the facts recited. (Le Mesnager v. Hamilton, 101 Cal. 536;1 Moore v. Hopkins, 83 Cal. 272;2 Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271;3 Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1948.) There was not, and could not be, a delivery of the deed by the grantor to the grantee, and it was not therefore effective. (Civ. Code, sec. 1054; Whitney v. American Ins. Co., 127 Cal. 467-469; Black v. Sharkey, 104 Cal. 279; Devlin on Deeds, secs. 294, 295.) The court erred in excluding the evidence of the physician as to the mental competency of Mrs. Cord to transfer her property. (McClintock v. Curd, 32 Mo. 411; Pinney’s Will, 27 Minn. 280; Woodcock v. Johnson, 36 Minn. 217; Melendy v. Spaulding, 54 Vt. 517.) The court erred in striking out the testimony of the physician that she was “evidently unconscious.” (People v. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29; People v. Wreden, 59 Cal. 394; Estate of Dalrymple, 67 Cal. 446.)

A. Ruef, for Respondents.

The certificate of the notary was prima facie evidence of the facts stated, and therefore tends to support the findings. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1948; Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271;3 Moore v. Hopkins, 83 Cal. 272;2 Le Mesnager v. Hamilton, 101 Cal. 556.1) The certificate is supported by other evidence. Conflicting evidence does not call for reversal where there is sufficient evidence to justify the decision. (Chico Bridge Co. v. Sacramento Tr. Co., 123 Cal 178; Stockton Bank v. Staples, 98 Cal. 189; Canning v. Central Pacific R. R., 50 Cal. 166.) Experts cannot usurp the province of the court, and their opinion on capacity or incapacity to dispose of property is incompetent. (2 Jones on Evidence, sec. 374; Estate of Redfield, 116 Cal. 637.) The court may always strike out any part of an answer which is not responsive. (Jones on Evidence, sec. 814.) No error affirmatively appears, the question not being given. (Clark v. Sawyer, 48 Cal. 133, Campbell v. Wells, 77 Cal. 250.)