From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlton v. Williams

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1888
77 Cal. 89 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.

         COUNSEL:

         Collier & Mulford, for Appellant.

          Hunsaker & Britt, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Hayne, C. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

         OPINION

          HAYNE, Judge

          [19 P. 186] Action of ejectment. The defendant claims the right to the possession under a lease. The lease was from a married woman, and was not acknowledged. The argument is that a lease by a married woman is not one of the instruments which are required to be acknowledged. We see no merit whatever in the argument.

         The fact that rent was accepted did not validate the lease, but at most created a tenancy terminable by proper notice; and it was so terminated.

         The findings are sufficient.

         We therefore advise that the judgment be affirmed, with fifty dollars damages.

         The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed, with fifty dollars damages.


Summaries of

Carlton v. Williams

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1888
77 Cal. 89 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

Carlton v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:W. B. CARLTON, Respondent, v. WALTER E. WILLIAMS, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 22, 1888

Citations

77 Cal. 89 (Cal. 1888)
19 P. 185

Citing Cases

Mathews v. Davis

The wife signing but not acknowledging a contract of sale is not estopped in favor of the purchaser from…

Ham v. County of Los Angeles

[2] The order granting a new trial, which is the basis of the second appeal, was made, generally, without…