Tissot v. Throckmorton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of San Francisco. This was an action by Paul Tissot and Natividad Haro, his wife, on a promissory note made by defendant to the wife during her marriage with her present husband. The defence set up is, that the defendant had purchased an interest in a tract of land known as the “ Protrero,” from Julius K. Rose, who had purchased of Natividad Haro.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of San Francisco. This was an action by Paul Tissot and Natividad Haro, his wife, on a promissory note made by defendant to the wife during her marriage with her present husband. The defence set up is, that the defendant had purchased an interest in a tract of land known as the “ Protrero,” from Julius K. Rose, who had purchased of Natividad Haro. That at the time of Rose’s purchase, the title papers to the land had been lost, and the title was of no great value. That subsequently the original grant and other muniments of title were discovered, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneflt
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The objection that the wife is improperly joined comes too late; it should have been taken advantage of by demurrer.
The defence set up as a reason for a continuance, or for a new trial, is not maintainable in this form. The defendant obtained for his note a deed to the land; if he can avoid the payment, he must give up the land, or he should have offered to surrender the deed to be canceled, so that both parties could have been remitted to their original rights.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wolff v. HoaglundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Bernstein v. DownsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Tissot & Wife v. DarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858