Los Angeles herald., 1891-08-22
SEVERAL DECISIONS.
Judgments from the Supreme
and Superior Courts.
A Case of Alleged Slander Re-
garding Land Title.
Judgment in the Matter of Santa
Barbara's Hall of Records.
Superior Court Decisions Arrived q,
Yesterday-Complaints in New
Suits Filed.

neutrality-suspicious. in New
Suits Filed.
Deputy Clerk M. J. Ashmore received
three decisions from the supreme court
yesterday on cases appealed from the
superior courts of this and Santa Bar.
bara counties. In each instance the
Judgment OF the lower court was
affirmed. The case of Frank Burkett
appellant vs.. T. j. Griffith, respondent,
is rather unusual one, the plaintiff
having sued for $4,000 for slander
alleged to have been uttered by Griffith
respecting the validity of Burkett's
title to some land which he was trying
to sell. The decision says:
''The plaintiff brought this action
against the defendant to recover the
sum of $4,000 damages caused by ocr-
tain false and malicious statements
alleged to have been made by him con-
corning certain property of the plaintiff.
The defendant demurred to the COM
plant upon the grounds of insufficiency
and uncertainty, and from judgment
entered upon an order sustaining the
demurrer the plaintiff has appealed.
although the term slander is more
appropriate to the defamation of char
acter of an individual, yet the term
slander of title has by use become a
recognized phrase in the law, and an
action therefor is permitted against one
who falsely and maliciously disparages
the title of another to property, whether
real or personal, and thereby causes him
some special pecuniary loss or damage.
In order to maintain the action it is
necessary to establish that the words
spoken were false, and were maliciously
uttered by the defendant, and also that
the plaintiff has sustained some special
pecuniary damage as the direct and
natural result Of their having been so
spoken.
''As words spoken of property are not
of themselves actionable, it is necessary
to allege the facts wherein the plaintiff
has sustained damage, and as special
damage is the only ground on which the
action can be maintained, it is essential
that such damage be distinctly and par
ticnlarly set out in the complaint. :.
1t is not actionable to speak dis
paragingly of the title of another unless
he is damaged thereby. The utterance
Of mere falsehood, however malicious,
will not sustain an action unless dam
age has resulted therefrom, and the
damage which can be recovered is only
such as is the direct and natural result
of the utterance of the words.
The complaint alleges that in August,
1888, the plaintiff was the owner of a
certain leasehold interest, with option
and privilege of purchasing two certain
tracts of land in Los Angeles county,
and that one Arthur Sketchley was then
negotiating and treating with him for
the purchase of, and offered to purchase
from him one-half of the same for $685.
600, and that the plaintiff accepted said
offer; that the defendant, well know
ing the premises, did wilfully and ma
liciously, during the period that the
said Sketchley was so negotiating, and
prior and subsequent thereto, publicly
state to divers persons (naming them)
and the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had
broken the covenants in said leases, and
had forfeited all rights Hereunder and
by virtue thereof and that the de-
fendant would not sell to the plaintiff or
to any person purchasing from him the
lduuh ucSCTlUcu III SdlU leases, Cr exc
cute the deed therefor on the tender of
the purchase price. That the said
statements were false and made to in
iure, and the said Sketchley was in
formed of them and refused to carry out
his agreement, whereby the plaintiff
was injured in the sum of $685. 600.
The discussion reviews the case at
length and comes to the conclusion that
ho onv,,,loinf dooc tot ,f
action. The judgment of the lower
court is therefore affirmed.
SANTA BARBARA CASE.
The judgment of the superior court OF
Santa Barbara county is sustained in
the case of Bates, respondent, VS.. the
county OF Santa Barbara, respondent,
and Booty ct al, appellants. Booty
took contract in 1889 to build hall of
records for the county of Santa Barbara,
for $19,850. He sublet part of the
contract to the Star Brick and Supply
company, and the building was erected.
Booty was allowed $l1,991 on his con-
tract, but before the remainder was
paid, Bates and others filed mechanics
liens on the building for labor and ma
terial and enjoined the supervisors from
paying the contractors any more
money. Suit was brought by Bates
against the county to recover his
claim and Bixby and the Star Brick and
Supply. company were made co-detend-
ants. Judgment was obtained for the
full amount of their claims, and there
being a deficiency judgment over and
above the remainder of the contract
price unpaid, a lien was placed on the
hall of records.
The case was appealed by Booty and
the Star Brick and Supply company ,and
the supreme court upholds the lower
on the building is concerned. In that
regard the upper court holds that no
county building can be subject to lien,
and Bates's costs for filing the lien are
stricken from the judgment.
SUIT OVER A cIENEGA.
In the case of Henry Miller vs. Bernar-
dino Cuelho, an action involving the
title of strip OF land containing a
spring, the judgmera of the superior
court of this county "A favor of the de-
fendant is affirmed. Nhe decision says
This action is for the recovery of
land, and the plaintiff rs undoubtedly
the owner of the legal subdivisions de-
scribed in his complaint; the only ques-
tion in the case being whether certain
spring in the possession OF the defendant
is situated within the limits of such SUBJ
divisions as originally surveyed by the
government. The defendant claims
that the spring is upon an adjoining
subdivision, the government \title to
which he holds. 1t seems that &he ex