The record-union., 1894-03-02
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Acknowledging a Forged Signature
Renders 1t Valid.
a Husband Substitutes q Deed to Him
for Lease Which His Wife
Had Signed.

The Supreme Court has rendered de-
cision in the case OF Blaisdell, respond
ent, VS.. Leach ct al, appellants.
Bailey X. Leach borrowed 1000 from
Blaisdell, and gave him as security a
mortgage upon land that appeared by the
records to have been conveyed to Leach
by his wife, Matte a. Leach. Action
was brought against husband and wife to
foreclose the mortgage, and Matt ie Leach
filed a separate answer, stating that she
was the sole owner Of the land and that
her husband had never had any interest
therein. On trial the court found that the
wite's signature to the deed was forgery,
but that she had acknowledged its eXecu-
ton to The Notary Public, thinking it was
a lease signed by her that morning, and
the conveyance had been placed on record
with the Notary'S certificate Of her ack-
noWledgment Endorsed thereon. No
question was made of the good faith OF
The plaintiff in loaning the money, and
the court held that he was entitled 10 rely
on the record evidence OF title and gave
judgment of foreclosure. The defendant,
Matte a. Leach, appealed.
The court holds that as the deed was
handed to her TO read before she acll-
nowledged it, that under various decis-
ions the fact that she had not signed it, in
view of her acknowledged before the
Notary estopped her from pleading the
forgery as against an innocent third
party. The Judgment is therefore al
tirmed.
QUESTION OF PRIOR LIEN.
The court has also decided the case of
James Shea ct al. (plaintit1s and appel
lants) vs.. Il. B. johnson ct al. defend
ants and respondents.
The complaint ayers that Johnson
brought action against defendant Getz
and attached some property OF his. sub
sequently plaintiffs sued Getz and at
tached the same property. The action
was brought to have it decreed that
plaintitfs' attachment, though subsequent
in time,iS prior lien to the attachment OF
Johnson.
There was no claim that the money
sued for by Johnson was not justly due
and owing him by Getz, or the alleged
issue between them was fraudulent. but
the money was due from Getz on lease
and the personal property was owned by
GetZ and on the leased premises, and that
Johnson had really Il hen on it, but stated
in his complaint that his claim had not
been secured by lien on real or personal
property.
Inc Judgment Is dlITIDeu, IL D0lLS IFlu
that the court below was right in SusAln-
ing the demurrer of Johnson.
FRESNO COUNTY DECISION AFFIRMED.
A decision has also been rendered IL
the case of w. Ii. Mckenzie ct al,
plaintiffs and respondents. VS.. A. ID.
Barling, defendant, and Edgar y. Cohen
ct al, defendants and appellants, an APP
peal by some OF the defendants from an
order OF the Superior Court OF Fresno
County, denying their motion for a
change Of venue.
Defendants Cohen and Beck moved for
change of fvenue to Alameda County.
where they reside, on the ground that
Alameda and not Fresno was the
proper place to try the case. 1t is ad-
mitted, however, that defendant Barling
has his residence in Fresno County.
The Court does not think the Superior
Court erred in denying the motion, as
the statutory provision is that the action
must be tried in the county in which the
defendants, or some OF them, reside" As
Barling resided in Fresno he was prop
erly party to the suit.
The order appealed from is affirmed.