Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-05-21
Sacramento and PlacerViile Railroad

The public will rcmcn Eer the tedious
litigation some years ago concerning the
line of railway from Folsom to Shingle
Springs, pending which the road was closed
and placed in the hands of receiver. Be
low will be found the decision of the Su-
preme Court in the case, rendered yester-
day
Robinson VS.. Plaeervile and Sacramento Val
ley Railroad Company. l9llSl
l. 1t would seem to be the theory of plaintiff,
the appellant, that the conveyance by Alvord
transferred only the title acquired through the
decretal sale based upon the foreclosure of the
second mortgage that is the title of defendant
subject only to the lien of the prior mortgage
Inasrnuch as the original scheme fell through
by reason of the failure effectively to organ
ize new corporation IL may for the purposes of
this decision even be conceded that Wells,
Fargo d Co., the second MORTGAGE, would have
been entitled TO receive the whole consideration
for the conveyance of the Alyord title, except for
the agreement with respect to its distribution
entered into between Wells Fargo & Co. and the
agent of plaintiff. the testimony of plaintiff is
clear TO the point that a large portion of the
consideration for the AlvOrd title was paid to :
him with the consent of Wells, Fargo 4 Co. "
be by him appropriated, in the proportions
stated in the circular of Wells Fargo .S co to
the payment and satisfaction of such of the cur
rency bonds of defendant as should be sur
rendered toF cancellation portion of the
consideration was in fact paid to the witness ON
his promise to apply the same To the taking M
of the currency bonds. OF the money 50 re
ceived, the witness paid to plaintiff II sum at
least equal to the percentage or proportion to be
paid for the surrender of the bonds claimed bv
him. True, the witness testifes that in his opin-
ion, the agreement between himself and Wells
Fargo & Co. " not binding on any
body and that plaintiff refused to take
the money for his bonds, but the wit
ness and plaintiff, each in turn took the
money, the latter with full knowledge of all
the facts and with notice that the agreement
with Wells Fargo & Co. was binding on the
witness, because he received the money thaviug
otherwise no claim to iO, with the distinct un-
derstanding that il should be applied to the sat
isfaction of defendants bonds. We think the
Court below was fully justified in reaching the
conclusion. upon the testimony of plaintiffs
brother alone, that plaiutIG received the money
for and in consideration of the surrender and
cancellation of his bonds. But there was evil
dcnce not only that plaintiff by his agent re-
ceipted fer his propOrtiOnate number Of shares
of the new corporation, but that he actually
surrendered his bonds to Wells Fargo Il 90
was made, whereunder portion of
the consideration for the sale of
the Alvord title was to be paid the brother Of
plaintiff, 10 be by him distributed among the
holders of such of the currency bonds MS
should be surrendered for cancellations the
bonds here sued for with others, We're delivered
TO him for the purpose Of enabling him 10 make
out Il statement of the several sums to be paid
to the respective holders OF currency bonds,
with the understanding and agreement that
they should be returned to Wells Fargo d Co.
to be destroyed when they were taken up by
payment of the money.
?. Counsel for plaintiff has ingeniously separa-
ted the answer of defendant into parts, calling
one portion plea of accord and satisfaction"
and another portion Il plea of " pay1nent' But
the suit is IN equity, and the facts ON which de-
tendant reled were proved by testimony to
which objection was not taken. The meHnine
of the answer is sufficiently plain The defend
ant relied upon an alleged surrender of the
bonds sued on by the owner of them and ac-
ceptance by him of stock i'm the new cOrpOru-
ton, and also upon the acceptance by
the owner of such bonds OF MONEYS,
part of the proceeds of the sale of
the Alvord title, for his bonds If
1t be conceded that defendant was mistaken
in supposing the surrender of the bonds for stock
of the new corporation to have satisfied the
bonds, because of failure i'm the organization of
the new corporation, and was mistaken in sup
posing that the acceptance of the distributive
share of the proceeds of the Alvord title was in
further and not in entire satisfaction of the
bonds, these supposed erroneous conclusions of
law on the part of defendant do not affect the
legal consequences of the facts alleged in the
answer. If the last fact stated constituted de-
tense, 1t IS no objection that the first is also
stated indeed, they were so far connected that
an intelligent appreciation of the relations of
the parties is facilitated by a recital of both
3 1t is urged that the plea OF payment is
not sustained by the evidence. because Il part
payment could not legally operate to eXtingtish
PLAINTIFF bonds. The answer does not obliCe n
technical payment" by defendant but that
the bonds were pdid satisfied and discharged as
the result of the facts averred If the bonds
were to be returned to Wells, Fargo & Co. upon
the acceptance by plaintiff OF a dstributive
share of the proceeds of the Alvord sale to be
destroyed by Wells, Fargo 4 Co. they We're in
effect, to be assigned to that corporation. which
was to receive them as assignee, subject to the
trust that they should be destroyed for the bene-
fit of defendant. Defendant was authorized to
assert its beneficial interest in the contract be-
tween plaintiff and Wells, Fargo Il Co., and we
know OF no equitable principle which would in
hibit Il third person from buying the claims
against debtor, for less than their face value,
for the benefit of the debtor.
4. Appellant says the findings are insufficient
because there is no finding us to the ownership
of the bonds. But it is alleged in the complaint
that the bonds therein named belonged to
plaintiff. II may be conceded that a finding on
that issue must have been in favor of plaintiff
No injury was done plaintiff by the failure to
find on the issue, because the result would have
been the same if the findings had been in his
favor.
;. The answer claimed affirmative relief and
the plaintiff was not authorized to dismiss his
action C. c., p. SD.
6. The depoSitions were admissible under the
stipulation Judgment and order affirmed