Deeds made by deputy sheriffs in their own names have uniformly been declared invalid. Freem. on Ex., sec. 327, and authorities cited in note; Lewis v. Thompson, 3 Cal. 266; Evans v. Wilder, 7 Mo., 350; Anderson v. Brown, 9 Ohio St. 151. As a general rule, whenever an officer is authorized to appoint a deputy such deputy may take and certify acknowledgments in the name of his principal.
In Joyce v. Joyce , 5 Cal. 449, it was held, that such a return was insufficient to prove service; and that the act and return of a deputy is a nullity, unless done in the name and by the authority of the Sheriff. And a similar principle was laid down in Lewes v. Thompson , 3 Cal. 266. The jurisdiction of Justices' Courts being special and limited, the law presumes nothing in favor of their jurisdiction; and a party who asserts a right under a judgment rendered in such Court, must show affirmatively every fact necessary to confer such jurisdiction.
If this suit had been brought by Clark against Walley he couldmake no defense whatever, his deed would estop him. 1 Green. Ev. secs. 22, 24; Jackson v. Bull, 1 Johns. Cases, 90, 91; Tarter v. Hall , 3 Cal. 266. Nor is the appellant in any better position as the case stands, the plaintiff claiming under a conveyance from Clark.
A Deputy may execute a deed for property sold under execution. 3 Cal. 266; 10 John. 223; 18 John. 7. Section 209, p. 447 of the Act of 1850, does not conflict with this rule.
The Court has frequently had occasion to apply the doctrine of estoppel, and in the application made there has been no departure from the plain rule. The following cases from this Court are cited: Hastler v. Hays , 3 Cal. 307; Tartar v. Hall , 3 Cal. 266; Redman v. Bellamy , 4 Cal. 250; Goodman v. Scannell, Oct. Term, 1856; Cal. S. N. Co. v. Wright, July Term, 1856. 4.