Jones v. Martin
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
A certified copy of a deed from the County Recorder’s office, contained in the margin of the acknowledgment taken before a Notary, and in the place where his seal is usually found, the words “ no seal ” thus: [No Seal]—the conclusion of the acknowledgment being “ In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year,” etc. The Court below ruled out the copy of the deed as evidence, on the ground that the acknowledgment did not have theBotary’s seal: Hdd, that the Court erred; that the words “ no seal/’ instead of implying that there was no seal affixed, were a mere note by the Becorder of the place of the notarial seal, which he probably had no means of copying.
A Becorder, in certifying to copies of deeds from his office, need not transcribe the notarial seal to the acknowledgment—the certificate of acknowledgment in this case stating that the Botary did affix his seal.
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 [167]that 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.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)