The Shasta courier., 1859-04-23
NUMBER 7.
Supreme Court Decision--Croweu ct al.
Gilmour, ct. al.
SHASTA; April %. 1859

Gilmour; ct. al.
SHASTA; April %, 1859.
MEssRs. EDITORS Il have confidence in our
Supreme Court The Judges are able, just and
but in the multiplicity of their engage.
ments, can they devote that time to their do
cisions which should be given? I am led to
make this inquiry from late decision rendered
by them or rather delivered by the Chief Justice
and concurred in by Justice Baldwin, (the case
of Crowell ct al. VS.. Gilmour ct al, Twas pres.
ent on the trial OF that case, which was an ac-
ton brought by certain mechanics, who claimed
a lien for work and labor done and performed
by them and materials furnished for John Bali
at his special instance and request Other cred-
itors of John Ball the real defendant, who was
represented by Gifnnour, who was sued as the
assignee of Ball in insolvency, interviewed in the
suit, and alleged that they were mortgages of
John Ball and J. c. Spencer and that their mort
cages, being upon the same property, the title
to which was in John G. Spencer, as shown by
the records in the Recorders Office, and that
consequently the mortgages held the property,
or created the first incumbrance upon it. The
records of the county showed that Spencer was
the owner of the land and the proof showed
that John Bail had leased the property from
Spencer, and that be had paid Spencer rent for
it, up to the date of his insolvency. There WAS
oral proof of the fact that Spencer had contract
ed with Ball to sell him the property upon his
paying to him a certain sum of money but no
part of the money had been paid. Upon this
state of facts Judge Daingerfeld decided, that
the mortgages executed by Spencer for borrow
ed money held the property, and that they must
be paid out Of the proceeds of the sale of the
same. The Supreme Court has reversed that
decision, and held that the records and proofs
in the case show that Ball had an equitable ir-
terest in the property, which should be subjected
to the payment of the mechanics liens, inas-
much as the mortgages were given after the me-
chancs performed portion of their work upon
the building. III understand their decision, it
is in effect, that parol contract totally unerecte
ted, can be enforced against contract made and
entered into with the bona fde record owner Of
land, or that party in possession Of land ana
tsnements Under q lsass, may improve 1t ad h5i-
tun, and that the mechanics need not look to
the title of the party In possession, before they
enter upon their work. If that be the doctrine
decided by our Supreme Court, it seems to me
to be very dangerous thing to rent property in
Cafifornia-or if verbal contract unexecuted
in any part, can be enforced as against fair con-
tracing parties upon the faith of record title,
the doctrine would be equally dangerous. Bet
ter far would it be to abolish the office of Coun-
ty Recorder, for if the records are not to impart
notice of title, they serve no other useful end,
Again l object to the decision in this case, for
the reason that the only point in the case of
any materialty, is aohat right had John Ball in
the property under the state of facts as shown
to the Supreme Court by the records They
had all the facts before them necessary to a.
full decision of the case, and the parties lftigant
had the right to expect that the question in dis
pute would be decided in the appellate court,
rather than to return tie cause undecided, to
the calendar of an already oyerburdened District
Judge, besides subjecting the parties lifigant to
the probable expense of another appeal.
The case is one of much interest to our peo-
p.e-it took many days before our District Court
in its trial more than two years ago-has been
twice agreed before the Suprsme Court, and at
last decided upon the authority of case report
ed in the year 1858, more than year after it
was tried by the District Court, and is now dis
posed of by Chief Justice Terry in about do.
zen lines, in which he merely decides that it
appears that Ball had some equitable interest in the
without even limiting what it ia
Cannot the appellants, for the good of the
community, and for their own benefit, procure
from the Supreme Court decision, as to whas
interest John Ball had in this property
J. Messrs. Editors, as you know, am not dis
posed to caril or complain of the officers of the
law, and woudnot comment on this decision of
the Supreme Court were it not, that it is mat.
ter of public Interest,
Respectfully, CIyIs.
Since receiving the above communication, we
have learned that the appellants have filed
petition for decision on the points spoken of
by Civis.-[EDs. COURIER.
PORTRAIT OF FANNY FERN-The Utica Heralds
Fern upon Broadway recently, leaning upon the
arm of her beloved James" He is a tall cad
averous individual, with melancholy expression
and eyes askew-but with good expression
withal. Fanny has passed her heyday no
onger young" is stamped upon her somewhat
face. A sang inc temperament large
'erceptiys faculties, sandy, wayy hair, falling
ow down upon her forehead-prominent tea
ures. People meeting her even in crowd say,
What strange looking woman? It is marked
but not bad face. It is not homely, but
strange face. 1t says; 81 have known some
bitter things-anguish, anger, solitude" 1t is
lot wholly good, and could not be entirely bad.
t hints at ugliness-it suggests its nobility 1t
$ sef-assured but not vain proud but not
naughty. 1t says: 81 have lived more wears
han recorded for me.D Her daughter, wo-
nan grown, is in appearance q fine second eai-
ion of herself"
nnf-<