Jacobson v. Pope & Talbot
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
WASTE, C. J., Dissenting.
I dissent. The majority opinion rests upon the, to me, false reasoning that, because the Barkers could have declared a valid homestead on the property at any time before they sold it to Jacobson, and thereby have relieved the property from the lien of respondents ’ attachments, but did not do so, the appellant, who purchased the land subject to the lien of the attachments, may do what the respondents’ debtor failed to do and, by making a declaration of homestead subsequent to his buying the land, accomplish that very object. “The object of the homestead law is to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Anderson v. GoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Weber v. McClevertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Kemp v. EnemarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Maloney v. HeferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.