Vlautin v. Bumpus
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, City and County of Sacramento. The promissory note sued on was made by Jesus Canboa and Dolores Diaz, on the 1st day of January, 1864. After-wards, and before the commencement of the suit, Dolores Diaz married defendant Peleg Bumpus.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, City and County of Sacramento. The promissory note sued on was made by Jesus Canboa and Dolores Diaz, on the 1st day of January, 1864. After-wards, and before the commencement of the suit, Dolores Diaz married defendant Peleg Bumpus. The following judgment was rendered by the Court below: “How on this day it is ordered and adjudged by the Court, that the plaintiff in this action do have and recover of and from the defendants herein the sum of four hundred and si& dollars and ninety-five cents,- with interest on said sum of four hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sawyer, C. J. :
The appeal is from the judgment in an action on a promissory note, without any statement. It does not appear when the payment on the note, admitted and allowed, was made, and it is, therefore, impossible to tell from the judgment roll whether the judgment is for too large a sum or not.
The only other point made, is, that the common property of husband and wife is not liable for the sole debt of the wife, created before her marriage. But it is otherwise settled in Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 308.
Judgment affirmed, and the remittitur directed to issue forthwith.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Maren v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by5 opinions
- Henley v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Medical Finance Ass'n v. AllumAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1937
- Johnson v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1931
- Armantage v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Floyd v. District Court of the Sixth Judicial DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 1913