Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-20
THE SUPREME COURT.
THREE DECISIONS RECEIVED HERE
YESTERDAY.
A Number of More or Less Novel Legal
Propositions Involved-A Digest of the
Documents.

Deputy Supreme Court Clerk M. j.
Ashmore received three decisions from
Sacramento yesterday for filing. None
were of very great local interest, but all
involved more or less novel legal propo-
sitions. In the case of S. G. Blaisdell
(respondent) VS.. s. A. Mcdowell appel
lant) question arose as to whether q
certain chattel mortgage on furniture
was valid under section 2955 OF the code
Of civil procedure. Two men, Butterfield
and Baker, made an arrangement with
Bryant by which he was to advance to
them $500, with which to purchase fur
niture for the Arlington hotel in San
Diego, they agreeing to give him a mort
gage on the furniture as security. The
money was deposited in bank by Bryant
and was checked out by Butterfeld and
Baker, the furniture bought and the
mortgage given.
The civil code provides that mortgages
may be given upon furniture used in
hotels, when mortgaged to secure the
purchase money of the articles mort
gagged. The appellant contends that all
mortgages of personal property are void
unless the property changes hands, and
that the statute, which alters the rule
and is applied only to cases where the
mortgage runs directly from the pur-
chaser to the seller to secure the amount
agreed to is paid by the former to the
latter. The supreme court sustains the
judgment of the lower court in favor of
the plaintiff.
BoGART VS.. CROSBY EFT AL.
In the case of Bogart (respondent) VS..
Crosby ct al. (appellants) which was
carried up to the supreme court by de-
fendants Daggett and Whitfield, the
Judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
The decision reads:
cit appears that Crosby & Van Haren
were verbally authorized by appellants
to sell for them tract of land in San
Diego, and acting under this authority
they agreed to sell the same to plaintiff
and receive from him the sum of $500
as deposit on the contract. No deed
could be made at the time on account OF
the absence of the appellant Remon-
dino, the plaintiff being assured by de-
fendant Van Haren that he would re-
turn within two weeks. After waiting
about three weeks the plaintiff notified
Whitfield that owing to the long delay
and uncertainty as to the time when
Remondino would return, he would not
complete the purchase, and demanded
a return of the money paid him as a de-
posit. Whitfield made no objection to a
refusal of the plaintiff to complete the
purchase, for the reason, as he states,
he considered the land worth more than
the plaintiff was to pay for it, and so in
formed the plaintiff that he would re-
turn his check to Crosby & Van Haren,
and he might settle with them. The
reason for this action seems to be that
the appellants did not wish to pay their
agents commission for their services,
and to avoid controversy upon this
point turned the money over to them
and left the plaintiff to settle with such
agents."
The agents, however, held on to the
money to pay themselves their commits
sions for attempting to sell the land,
and Bogart recovered from the owners.
The court comes to the following con-
clusion: "The appellants soon there
after sold the land to another person for
no less than plaintiff was to pay, and it
does not appear that they have suffered
any damage by reason of the refusal OF
the plaintiff to complete the purchase.
MILLER VS.. SEARS ET AL.
In the case of Miller, appellant, vs..
Sears ct al, respondents, the upper
court reverses the order of the lower
court in granting the defendant a non
suit. This was an action to recover the
possession of certain instruments, con-
aisting of note, mortgage and two
deeds, each signed by the plaintiff and
deposited with the defendants.