The record-union., 1892-05-27
APPELLANTS WORSTED.
Two Appealed Judgments Affirmed
by the Supreme Court.
A Nevada County Land Case-Unfore-
seen Accidents Not Sufficient
Cause for Damages.

The decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Hudepohl (appellantl VS.. Lib
erty Hydraulic Water and Mining Com
pany ct al. was filed in Deputy Clerk
Govan's Office yesterday. The action
was brought in Nevada County to set
aside an execution sale on the ground
that the property, consisting of several
disconnected parcels Of land, was sold en-
masSe.
'The court below sustained demurrer
to the complaint, and we think its action
was right" says the Supreme Court. 1.-THE
PLAINTIFFS right to maintain the action
rests upon his claim to be a redemptioner
by virtue of a Judgment rendered in his
favor against the defendant corporation
in the Superior Court of San Francisco,
of which a transcript of the docket was
filed in the County Recorders office in
Nevada County, on March %, 1887. The
property had, however, been sold by the
Sheriff of Nevada County, October 8,
1886, upon judgment against the same
defendant in favor of one Todd, and the
defendant Marshall, who also held a
judgment lien against the same property,
and redeemed the property from the sale
on the 18th of October, 1886.
"First-The complaint shows that
Marshall, the redemptioner who re-
deemed the property from the purchaser,
sold and conveyed all his rights, includ-
ing the right to deed from the Sheriff,
to defendant, Anna E. Smith, before
plaintiff IS judgment became lien on the
property, and it is not alleged that she
tSmith) had notice of any irregularity in
the sale. Innocent vendees of the orig
inal purchaser will always be protected,
whether proceeded against by bill or mo mo-
ton. (Freeman on ex., I'd ed, Sec. 296;
Mixer VS.. Sibley, 80 H., 81; Nelson VS..
Bunnenberg. 81 Ind. 1897 The doctrine
of the Indiana case cited by appellant
Piel VS.. Brayer-haS been expressly
repudiated in that State. Zones vs..
Kokomo Building Association, n Ind.
344.)
'Second-It is not alleged that the pro-
ceedS OF the sale were less than they
would have been if the land had been
sold i'll separate parcels. Unless it is
made apparent to the court that larger
sum would have been realized from the
sale if the property had been sold in
parcels, or that the sale of less than the
whole tract would have brought sufficient
to satisfy the writ, the sale will not be set
aside. The question Is not, what would
the property bring if sold now or III the
future, but whether the proceeds would
have been materially increased or the
execution satisfied by sale of less than
the whole, if the land had been offered
and sold in parcels.
''Third-It is not sufficient to allege
merely that several separate tracts were
sold in the lump by the Sheriff. (Riddell
VS.. Harrell, II Cal. 262.l Such sales are
voidable, not void; and one who seeks to
have a sale en- mdSSe set aside should
show that none of the conditions which
would authorize the sale of all the parcels
together existed at the time ofthe sale.
There was no lien on the property,
except that of the judgment creditor, at
the time of the sale. The sale may have
been made IN SOiido by express direction of
the judgment debtor, or it may have been
offered in parcels and no bids received
The judgment debtor may by parole
waive a sale of the land in parcels and
give authority to sell en- m0SSe. (Smith
VS.. Randall, Cal. 81; S. F. VS.. Pixley,
34S.)
1.-The judgment is affirmed"
HORSE CASE AFFIRMED.
A decision was also filed in the case of
George kneier (appellant) VS.. Fred Wat
rous. The action was brought in San
Joaquin County to recover the value Of a
horse which was in pasture in charge OF
one Lowry at the Learned d. Harris
ranch.
L uG uoleillduI dlSO Ildu morse at The
ranch on pasture, and went there without
permission and drove up a number of
horses to the corral. The plaintiffs ami
NAL became frightened when defendant
proceeded to catch his horse, jumped
the fence, and was killed. The real ques-
ton in the case was as to whether the de-
fendant was responsible.
The plaintiff appeals from an order re-
fusing new trial, but the Supreme
Court affirmS the order