Jones v. Martin

California Supreme Court July 1, 1860

Jones v. Martin, 16 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1860)

1860 Cal. LEXIS 198

Baldwin

Opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

We think the Court erred in excluding the deed in this case. Take the transcript altogether, and we think it shows sufficiently that the seal of the Notary was affixed to the instrument. The certificate asserts *167that the Notary affixed his seal to it, and the words “ No seal,” in brackets in the margin, do not imply that there was no seal affixed, but axe a mere note of the Recorder of the place of the notarial seal, which he had probably no means of copying, nor was it necessary that he should transcribe it.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: JONES v. MARTIN
Cited By: 11 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: A certified copy of a deed from the County Recorder’s office, contained in the margin of the acknowledgment taken before a Notary, and in the place where his seal is usually found, the words “ no seal ” thus: [No Seal]—the conclusion of the acknowledgment being “ In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year,” etc. The Court below ruled out the copy of the deed as evidence, on the ground that the acknowledgment did not have theBotary’s seal: Hdd, that the Court erred; that the words “ no seal/’ instead of implying that there was no seal affixed, were a mere note by the Becorder of the place of the notarial seal, which he probably had no means of copying. A Becorder, in certifying to copies of deeds from his office, need not transcribe the notarial seal to the acknowledgment—the certificate of acknowledgment in this case stating that the Botary did affix his seal.