Jones v. Martin
JONES v. MARTIN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph G. Baldwin (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Baldwin
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
We think the Court erred in excluding the deed in this case. Take the transcript altogether, and we think it shows sufficiently that the seal of the Notary was affixed to the instrument. The certificate asserts *167that the Notary affixed his seal to it, and the words “ No seal,” in brackets in the margin, do not imply that there was no seal affixed, but axe a mere note of the Recorder of the place of the notarial seal, which he had probably no means of copying, nor was it necessary that he should transcribe it.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Cited by
- Estate of Connick S. F. No. 9949. · 1922-09-12
- Emmal v. Webb · 1868-10-15