Daily national Democrat., 1858-10-21
nailp Nattuual 4emotrat,

GREEN VS.. CovILLAUD EFT At.-~SUPREME
Counr DEc1sIoN--The Uniou, of yesterday,
fms eondenses this decision:
Green VS.. Covillaud ct al was case Of
considerable impoit tance in its general bear
;nrs 1t seems that Thomas Elrod and Issaac
Green filed their bill in the Tenth judicial
district Court against Charles Covillaud, j.
NJ Ramirez, William II. Sampson, G.. n.
Swezy. F. L. Aud, guardian of Q. b. Samp-
oon n lunatic; S. G Tompkins, executor OF
tbe estate of r. B. Buchanan; Minnie C.
buchanan, and George G.. Briggs. The bill
sbows that the plaintiffs and one NJ. j. Tur-
nov and one Ezra Bligh, on the 1st of Janur-
~ 1851. purchased of r. S. S. and said
Buchanan tract of land near Marysvile
containing about two hundred and twenty
six acres that the purchase was made in
consideration of 500, 500 being paid and
the balance in a promssory note, due Octo-
hor 1st 1851 that the endorsers executed on
their part, a bond, wherein they promised
thew would "upon the payment of the pro.
nissorv note at its maturity" execute and
deliver to the vendees or their representa-
tiyes. 'good and sufficient deed of convey.
once" etc, that all of the possession had
.been with the knowledge and assent of the
vendors. and vendees have made improve.
ments to the value of $4,000, and at ali times
asserted their right to the whole of the tract.
Other facts are stated, the purport of which
will he perceiyed in the conclusions of the
Court. The oil further charges that the
vendors sold to Briggs in 1855, a portion of
the land the prayer is for the specific per-
formance. This bill is sworn to. The de.
fendants demurred to it generally and speci-
ally. The demurrer was overruled by the
Judge below; and the defendants then an.
swered, denying the allegations upon which
the equity of the bill rested, setting up new
matters. and pleading the statue of limita.
tions Of four years as a bar. In January,
1857. and after the decision in Brown vs.
'Covillaud (6 California Reports) the pl1intiffs
obtained leave to amend their bill, and filed
an amendment. A long and elaborate opin
ionis given by the Court in which it reviews
rather sharply the views of the Court below.
The merits of the case are summed up in the
statement that one of the parties to whom
the tender is alleged to have been made is
dead and another insane; that one of the
vendors was about this time insolvent; that
neither have been shown TO be men of prop
erty; the inherent improbability that these
vendors understood they were to postpone
payment until the confirmation of the title,
for if rejected they would get nothing, if con-
firmed only the contract price; and when, if
they warranted the title, at most they would
only have to pay back the money and by
delay of confirmation, as it ,oas delayed, the
statute of limitation would bar their claim :;
that this loose, verbal evidence is contradicted
by the terms of the contract, and, to some
extent, by the unquestioned acts of the par
ties; the suspicious circumstance that the
attempt legally to enforce the contract is net
made, and the formal tender which seems to
be preliminary to it, did not take place un-
til after the confirmation, and the consequent
rise in the value of the property; the high
rate of interest the vendors were paying; the
urgency of their pressure for money. eoHsc-
quently the folly Of the contract as alleged,
and the apparent want of reason in the ven
doris alleged des re not to receive the money,
give deed, before confirmation and that
the claim has been partially assigned all
these facts certainly weigh very strongly
against the case made by plaintiffs to the dis
cretion of the Court for equitable relief, when
to give it would operate very harshly on one
side and be only successful speculation
without risk on the other But it is enough
to say that the case made by their bill does
not entitle them to a decree. The Court,
reverses the decree dismissing the
plaintiffs bill.