Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-01-04
a ssea.Iex o. GExE.Al lxrKsksr.

II y , y -
ffitag BtlI 20 sale for Record 4. Ne
seesraiaz d. ssa BIn sT sal
keesraed In . Bssk ef Dsea. n Ne
Valid keesra.
Adam Tosh ". J.H. McGSrAw :. Al
Ocinton- Greene, J.
This Is motion by plaintiff for
neN trial Three reasons srs urzsS
/ Shy It should he granted First, insaf
aeisney Of the evidence to Justify Ia
verdict seoDsid. thai the " vsrdicf /
against lzE third. T" the verdict Il II
rousoaa, foe srfoF sxesrtsd 20 az ia,
/ time.
The trial uas had in q pEoeeelin.
der sbsFteF Ixxm of the Code
Piaibtin claimed ezFsain personal prop
srty. which had been levied upon by IL.
defending sasria. The levy uas mad,
Ia = suit SAeed by tie ether defendant
against debtors 0f his. Ehom plainsie
90 sitis trial sought 10 prove - have
become. notwithstanding their r~niins
Indebtedness, vendors hand Jfsis 10 him
self OF tue prop s=iy IN controvsrsy, by
oiil OF sale. A bill Of sale Wis in evl
dence, which purpoFted on its face 70
Pas- title Ia the property 20 the plain
tin Just ~ be claimed, tut there vas
Also la evidence tzsfimopy tending to
show that the seeming bill of sails was
intended by the parties 10 u 10 be 10
operation aud ensct a mortgage. al
though neither s@orn to, seknOsled2sd
ncF recorded IS the iaW requires, Fur.
thsf testimony showed that. At the time
OF the alleas d sale. the property was.
nrswa 4. 4 a 4. =.
the possession OF the alleged vendeFa.
and that no actual and continued pos-
session accompanied or followed the
alleged sale.
Up0n the facts ~ displayed IL evi.
deuce the proposed disposal Of the
property to plaintiff was clearly frzadu
lent and void as against the defendants,
both " common law and by our stat
ats. unless lt Vas Intended to be q sale
and vas saved " q record according TO
statute OF the bill Of sale. To save ID
40 sale. prosf Of record Of the bill of
sale was attempted. Evidence Was pro
doe~d which showed that the instru-
ment had bSeD filed for record in the
ofies of the County Auditor, and had
been copied By hin at large into boos
KEEP; IN his office for the rsoord of deeds
and Other Instruments relating to real
e,ts'e, but not into any other book.
There Was q evidence THAI the doce-
nlsnt bad baeu aytualiy entered or
noted 10 any indies sr other msmorap
dam book in bis oIA9s. aud a. oar stat
utcs do not presoribe any snch entry or
noting for bills 0f SALE, there w1s NO
presumption on that acore.
As 10 this brapch OF the case, the
judge Instructed the jary that, 10 m ike
= good record Of the paper writing, II
sh0g!d have been recorded IN the book
designated by statute for shat purpose !;
that = book kept for the record of deeds,
st1., Vt real estate vas COS sach book :;
md that q record elsewhere would be
void and nugatory. The verdict was
toubie one. IL found generally that
that the y aiptid failed - m sintain his
ritie, and it found specially. 40
cotdinR TO request Of the plaintiff.
that the bill OF sale Was void by reason
4 not having been properly recorded.
sut by the verdict ". are Il apprised
shat the general was based on the
special finding; nor am ! by this mo-
ton made 70 understand whether the
plaintIn intends 20 do anything more
than object that the special finding is
contrary TO law. In ArRura ant. how
ever, he goes to tbs length Of contend
ing that she general fading il bad bs-
cause II assumes the fast which Is
specially found. 10 this | cannot an
sent. There was enough in the esse to
sustain the general verdict. conesding
that fact.
What has been principally debated on
this motion aud selected by tbs plain
tiff as the sole ground OF debate, ana
vas the chief point OF dispate on the
trial, is the question. whether under our
statutes the recording Of \ bill OF sale
IN the book kept for recording deeds,
etc, Of real estate n valid record. In
regard 10 this question The coGrt in-
strucsed adversely 70 plsinilf. He ex-
oepted. A verdict came In adverse 10
him. Te the verdict also he excepted.
Oar statute provides that upon appli-
cation new trial may be granted for
certain enumerated causes, aud among
others, that the verdict Is not Justified
by the evidence, or 10 against Law, OF
that error in lsw occurred al the trial
and was excepted to at the time BY the
applicant. Code See. 216. IL further
provides that in all cases Of motion for
aew trial the eroands thereof shall b.
e,sarly specified. and no cansa Of nsx
trial net 50 stated shall be considered
or regarded by the court. C,sds, Sec.
~. Looking &C plaintiffs motioa on
die, csunot see thai hs has Clearly spe-
citisd - cause for nee trial any sup
possd error IN Law occurring at the trisi.
excepted to at the time. lie has not
even been % spsciao as 10 follow ths
ststatoFy language. HIS expression.
" error exesptsd 10 at the sinle," 10, g.
say the least, ~ applicable to The YER
dtot itself and what took place on lhe
reception and announcement OF u ss to
anything that occurred previously.
Now then, from all shat has been
sad, 10 follows thai this motion canno.
be rightly sustained on the groand Of
the insufiieieneY Of the evidence, be.
causs, since the special vnrdict vas not
spontaneoos, is cannst. as otherwise Ii
might, be construed a. qualifying and
giving reason for the general verdict.
and there vas enough evidence 90 irsti-
" the latter Notwithstanding the for
mer. Nue can the motion be sustained
on the ground thai the verdict itsslf h
againas law, because q 10 inpoasible TO
know whesher the special findias IL ille.
gal with0at referring bach 10 rulings or
-. 4 - -. n Il