TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Knock v. Bunnell

Knock v. Bunnell, 21 P. 961 (Cal. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1889
Docket
No. 12,469
Judges
Hayne
Citations
21 P. 9613 Cal. Unrep. 105
Syllabus
Homestead Declaration—Estimate of Value.—Where a homestead declaration contains no estimate of the cash value of the property, as required by Civil Code of California, section 1263, it is void.1
Summary
APPEAL from Superior Court, Lassen County; M. Marsteller, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hayne

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HAYNE, C.

The transcript in this ease is improperly entitled: Simpson v. Applegate, 75 Cal. 345 , 17 Pac. 237 . The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by one H. C. Stockton, since deceased. No claim was presented to the administrator, the plaintiff having waived in his complaint all recourse against any property of the estate other than the mortgaged property. Judgment passed for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The main ground relied upon for the reversal is that a homestead existed upon the property, and that, therefore, a claim should have been presented under the rule of Camp v. Grider, 62 Cal. 20 . It is. sufficient answer to this contention to say that no homestead existed upon the property. The homestead declaration set out in the answer and introduced in evidence contains no estimate of the cash value of the property, as required by section 1263 of the Civil Code. It was therefore void: Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 616 ; Ames v. Eldred, 55 Cal. 136 . In this view the evidence introduced for the purpose of showing that the homestead had ceased to exist was irrelevant and immaterial, and, if it be assumed that there was error in its admission, such error was without injury. The other matters do not require special *106 notice. We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

We concur: Gibson, C.; Foote, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reason given in the foregoing, opinion the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 11961: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Simpson v. Applegate, 17 P. 237 (Cal. 1888) 11
Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 616 (1880) 22
Camp v. Grider, 62 Cal. 20 (1882) 22
Ames v. Eldred, 55 Cal. 136 (1880) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list