Gordon

Gordon v. City of San Diego

Good Law
108 Cal. 264·1895 Cal. LEXIS 854·41 P. 301
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1895No. 19574California2,229 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This is a second appeal. Upon the former appeal the judgment against the city was reversed and a new trial ordered, and upon such new trial the plaintiff again obtained judgment.

The action is to quiet title to the east half of pueblo lot 1215, containing about forty-five acres, situate in said city. For a general statement of the facts, see the opinion rendered upon the first appeal, reported in 101 Cal. 522 ; 40 Am. St. Rep. 73 . Only such different or additional facts as were developed upon the second trial need be stated here.

1. As affecting the validity of the deed to Whaley, it is now shown that, though the deed bears date February 27, 1869, it was not acknowledged until August 21,1869; and at the time it was acknowledged Schiller and Sloane, two of the trustees who were in office at the date of the deed, and who had joined in its execution, had ceased to be trustees.

A deed signed and delivered, except where a married woman is the grantor, is good, and operates to convey the title, though not acknowledged. The object of an acknowledgment is twofold: To entitle the instrument to be used as evidence without further proof, and to enable it to be recorded. (Fogarty v.…

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.