From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. White

Supreme Court of California
Nov 1, 1880
57 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1880)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, in the First District Court, County of San Luis Obispo. Fawcett, J.

         COUNSEL:

         James L. Crittenden, for Appellants.

          W. J. & William Graves, and P. A. Forrester, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         The Court:

         We are of opinion that no ground appears for setting aside the default of the defendant Sarah L. White. It does not appear but that Mr. Venable was authorized to represent her. We do not see that fraud or imposition was practiced upon her at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and we are of opinion that there was nothing improper in the professional conduct of Mr. Venable. We think the rule regarding the execution of instruments by married women is correctly stated by Mr. Jones in his work on Mortgages, § 538.

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

Grant v. White

Supreme Court of California
Nov 1, 1880
57 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1880)
Case details for

Grant v. White

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE E. GRANT et al. v. SARAH L. WHITE et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 1, 1880

Citations

57 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1880)

Citing Cases

Banning v. Banning

The notary's certificate is conclusive of all the facts stated in it. (Grant v. White , 57 Cal. 141;…

People v. Sanders

The presumption of regularity must first be overcome. (Grant v. White , 57 Cal. 141; De Arnaz v.…