Poole v. Gerrard
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The record shows that Hiram Poole, thg husband of the plaintiff, on the 15th Sept., 1853, conveyed the homestead to the defendant for §3,500, by a deed in which his wife did not join, though it was made with her knowledge. Poole the next day left the country.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The record shows that Hiram Poole, thg husband of the plaintiff, on the 15th Sept., 1853, conveyed the homestead to the defendant for §3,500, by a deed in which his wife did not join, though it was made with her knowledge. Poole the next day left the country. The plaintiff, who was residing on the property under the impression that she had no legal rights to the homestead, conveyed her claim thereto to the defendant for §200, by a deed executed and acknowledged as if she were a feme sole, Sept. 28th, 1853. On the 7th of February,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The Court below erred in deciding that the deed of the plaintiff conveyed all her interest in the property. In Simpers & Crammer v. Sloan, (5 Cal. R.,) at the October Term, 1855, we held “ that a feme covert has no power to make a contract.”
*73To make a valid sale of the homestead requires the joint deed of husband and wife. The husband must make the contract and the wife must assent to it by an examination separate and apart from her husband. This is the mode pointed out by the statute, and it must be…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hart v. ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Gee v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Whelan v. AdamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Hannon v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Howell, Jewett & Co. v. McCrieSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.