Lewes v. Thompson

5 Citing cases

  1. Herndon v. Reed

    82 Tex. 647 (Tex. 1891)   Cited 25 times
    In Herndon v. Reed, 82 Tex. 647, 18 S.W. Rep., 665, Judge Gaines, delivering the opinion of the court, and quoting from Judge Storey, in Wood v. U.S., 16 Peters, who was passing upon repeals by implication, says: "We say 'necessary implication,' for it is not sufficient to establish that subsequent laws cover some, or even all, of the cases provided for by it; for they may be merely affirmative, cumulative, or auxiliary.

    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.

  2. Rowley v. Howard

    23 Cal. 402 (Cal. 1863)   Cited 21 times

    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.

  3. Dodge v. Walley

    22 Cal. 225 (Cal. 1863)   Cited 17 times

    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.

  4. Cloud v. El Dorado County

    12 Cal. 128 (Cal. 1859)   Cited 17 times

    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.

  5. Marziou v. Pioche

    8 Cal. 522 (Cal. 1857)   Cited 8 times

    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.