Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jacobson v. Pope & Talbot

California Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1932No. Docket No. S.F. 13517Published

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

  1. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Anderson v. GoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Weber v. McClevertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Kemp v. EnemarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Maloney v. HeferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API