Welden

Mitchell v. Welden

Good Law
1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 160
California District CourtJuly 15, 1857California332 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Norton, J.

charged the jury as follows:

The plaintiff in this action must recover on his title alone. A deed from one person to another, conveying land, is of no effect and passes nothing until delivery. If the jury believe that the deed from Swain to plaintiff was not delivered before the commencement of this suit, he cannot recover. Residence with a family on the premises, printa fa *162 cie makes them a homestead. While the premises were a homestead it was out of Welden’s power to convey them without the concurrent action of his wife. If, however, it had ceased to be'their homestead, then the wife’s signature is immaterial. At the time of the' execution of the deed to plaintiff, the. premises continued a homestead if the wife had not abandoned residence there. If Welden went to Washington Territory with the intention of making only a temporary residence or stay there, atid of eventually returning to this State, as his home, then it was necessary for his wife to execute the deed conveying the premises, with .him, in order to render it valid, to convey them, although she should then have been living in Washington Territory,, and should have continued to reside there subsequently. But if…

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.