Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-04-29
. THE ARGUMENTS
I'm The
Raymond-.Hermes Case.
Judge Mesick.

proposed to commence at the beginning
OF the line Of defense and follow il to its
conclusion, though some repetition in
doing so would be unavoidable. The
plaintiffs SUE for the recovery of 280 feet
Of mining ground which, it is alleged, We
have entered on, under some sort of claim,
and you, gentlemen OF the jury, are TO
pass Judgment % to which title il good.
plaintiffs or ours. The plaintiff further
claims the right to turn us out of posses
sion ON our own title, regardless of its |
own. Now, on the first branch OF the |
case, the plaintiffs must recover
on the Panaca title, or fail. The Sec
ond branch Of their complaint is that
while Perley and Lightner were acting
- confidential agents for plaintiffs they
secured their title, and that, wherefore.
its benefits should inurs to the plain
tiffs. The plaintiffs cannot recover on
our title, for various reasons. II we
acknowledge u trust on the part Of Per
Icy, Lightner and Hearst towards the
Raymond l. Ely Company, that cannot
affect the defendants now, who are pur-
chasers in good faith without notice and
for valuable consideration. Now, II a
party hoNng in trust sells TO you, you
having no notice of the existence Of the
trust, and paying valuable considera-
alton, you must be protected, in
equity aud in law. We claim to b.
purchasers for consideration and
without notice. though Lightner and
| Perley might have been notified in
acquiring the property will read what
Judge Story says on this point. Reads.
In this case, ono party agreed with an
other to purchase certain real estate in
Boston; 1t was purchased by one Of the
agreeing parties and decided TO third,
on the ground that the agreement had
been abandoned. Then came into Court
the party ignored in the original agree
ment, asking that the deed from his CO.
partner be set aside. 1t was held by the
Court that the purchaser gave valuable
consideration, without notice Of the ex-
istence of q trust, and should be pro-
tected. Now, in our case, we gave q
valid consideration for property which
never had been legally located, or. il it
had been, the location had become invalid
from lapse Of time and the neglect Of the
claimants. We bought without knowl-
edge of any existing trust. The argu-
mentation in the case last referred to was
read and commented on ut great length,
cheney OF notice, actual or constructive.
Now, at the time of the Hermes purchase
from Hearst, Hearst, or the locators, were
in possession, which was the best con-
structive notice to the purchasers that
there were no valid adverse claims.
The fact that Lightner and Perley were
the parties in possession, and that they
were in positions OF confidential relation
ship to the Raymond & Ely Company,
does not lessen the force OF this construc-
tive notice, because the purchasers must
have been ignorant of this relationship.
II there were any notice it must have
been the notice that the Raymond Il Ely
Company had an absolute and indefeasa-
bic title to the ground. The tenant be.
ing in possession is the same as the
owner being in possession himself. and
Lightner and Perley, when the Hermes
Company purchased of Hearst, having
possession Of the property, it is the same
rs il Hearst himself had been in posses.
sion. Hearst conveyed all the in
terests that had been secured by the
location Of the Hermes propsrty, and
ut the time there was no notice
Of any claims by the plaintiffs. of any
character. A deed Of release has beer
construed to be deed of bargain and
sale; in California and here deed OF re-
lease is held to be to the releases the same
as conveyance absolute. The deed from
} Hearst to the Hermes Company was an
actual conveyance of all his right, and
the purchasers, knowing moth ny of the
adverse claims OF which We only had the
first notice when this suit was com.
menced. cannot be prejudiced in their in
terests by such adverse claims. They
; stood silently by while We expended Of
least $4,000 in the development Of thu
property. The law requires the motto.
10 be plain and direct, and the courts vii
9 sometimes hold the purchase to be goot
against valid adverse claims without no
tice, even though all the purchase none,
has not been paid. Now, the Hsrme
' location passed from the locat0rs to Per
lev, Lghtner and NcCannon, from Per
lev, Lightner and McCannon to Hearst
and from Hearst to the Hermes Com
Q pany. What was the consideration? !
|. was the transfer and delivery to Georg
Hearst Of $4,000 shares in the Herme
Company. Reads certificate Of tn
o organization Of the Hermes Company
in which it is stated that the capital stocl
shall be $3,OOO,O 900, to be divided int
l. sc, 1000 shares. Was this stock valu
= vier's Institutes. showing aivaluable con
!. sideration is anything by which benefit
= are secured to the parties receiving tn
. consideration. The consideration ma.
. be by the payment Of money, or an
!. other thing, or the promise Of money, o
any other thing. Reads from Nevad
:, Reports. In this case the consideration
u was forbearance to collect money. III
70 question is not whether the consideration
was I'D squate, but whether twas valuable
ia The c consideration Of giving up RICH
~ may be sufficient. Did not Hears
: receive all the stock Of the corpors
- tionl The stock Of q corporation
: declared by the law Of corporations
. be personal estate. 1t is subject to o,
y tachment and liable to execution. II
70 held by the courts to be o valuable cor
: sideration in constituting contract
READS from Angel on contracts; ais
il from SD CAL Here it is plainly lai
a.. down that corporation is an artificis
body which cannot be controlled 9
'e affected by it's stockholders. 1t has n
10 validity, NO power Of receiving or in
:. parting notice, except through its Bosr
~ OF Trustees. George Hearst, il he ha
notice, in this case, Of prior claim, we
e. only one OF the Eve trustees, and conss
a quently the notice or knowledge he ind
! vidually had was not notice to the col
- poration. The evidence is conclusiv
that the Board Of Trustees knew nothin
~ Of this adverse claim until they had pal
Hearst BY issuing and transferring to hii
the 81. 600 shares in the stock agreed
u b. paid him; the evidence 10 conclusiv
tn sa.y rnsI II NJ. o. on s.a Ssp
III served on them. Now. notwithstandin
n this, II may be claimed that notice
Hearst was the same ~ notice to q
corporation itself; and the only authorit