Pope v. Kirchner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1ConcurrenceThornton, J.
The affidavit of the deposit in the post-office was sufficient. If it was Kirchner’s affidavit, it was sufficient, though not signed by him. In Ede v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 53, this was expressly held, and we think correctly held. If it was not Kirchner’s affidavit, Deputy County Clerk Gaskill’s affidavit was signed by him. It is immaterial that the affidavit commences “Herman Eirchner, being duly sworn,” etc. It is evident that this was a- clerical error or mistake, from the fact that the words just above quoted are followed by the statement “ that he is a deputy clerk of the county of Alameda.”…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ede v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Bennett v. His CreditorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863