The record-union., 1893-03-31
DECISIONS FILED.
Two Cases Finally Determined by the
Supreme Court.
One Appealed From Fresno, and the
Other From Tulare County
Points for Lawyers.

In the case of Risley VS.. Gray and 9TH
ers the Supreme Court has affirmed the
decision of the Superior Court of Fresno
County denying a new trial to the plain
tiff. The action was brought upon a
promissory note executed by defendant
Gray to the defendant Stevens.
The plaintiffs title to the note was de-
rived by purchase thereof. after its matur-
ity, at a Sheriff's sale under an execution
issued upon judgment against Stevens.
The note had been executed by Gray in
part payment for the purchase of an in
terest in mine in Fresno County.
Stevens represented to Gray that the
value of the ore in the mine was enough
TO meet the amount of the purchase price
! and notes given therefor, and Gray pur-
chased the note upon these representa-
tlons. Upon working the mine it proved
OF no value, and thereupon Gray and
Stevens mutually agreed to a surrender
! OF the note and cancellation of its obliga-
tlons, but the note itself was left with
stevens, and was not in fact delivered TO
Gray. This agreement was after its ma
turity and prior to the purchase of the
note by the plaintiff at the Sheriff's sale.
Defendant Gray in his answer alleged
that the only consideration for the note
was the purchase of this interest in the
NINE, and that he made the purchase
upon the mutual agreement and under
standing between him and Stevens that
the mine was worth more than the
amount paid for it, but that in fact ii was
OF no value whatever. At the trial the
court found in accordance with these allie
cations and the Supreme Court sustains
the judgment.
a TULARE CASE.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the
decision of the Superior Court OF Tulare
County in the case of Gilbert b. Clai-
borne, executor Of the last will and testa-
ment of George CroSsmore, deceased, VS..
George II. Castle, Jr., Hayes Nicewonger
and Joseph Swain, executors of the last
will and testament of George II. Castle,
deceased and Hayes Nicewonger.
On April 3, 1854, George Crossmore,
now deceased. was the owner of the real
estate in the complaint described and on
That DAY he sold the said real estate to
Nlcewonger Tor the sum of =, 1000, taking
his pronlissory note therefor, payable
four years from that date, with interest.
Crossmore executed L grant, bargain and
sale deed for said premises to Nicewon-
ger, but said deed was never recorded. 1t
appears that Nlcewonger was indebted to
one Castle in sum OF money exceeding
| $4,000, and about the 2Sth day of tebru-
ary, 1885, Castle, Crossmore and Nice
wonger met, and it was agreed between
them that Nicewonger would surrender
up his deed, and that the same should be
destroyed, and that Crossmore should
execute decd of said land to Castle di-
rect; that Castle should pay -, 800 for the
land by paying to Crossmore $3.50 interest
Oh the note, and to Nicewonger 80. and
by crediting Nicewonger with the sum of
! s., 900 on his Indebtedness to him Castle,
and that Crossmore should keep the note
of Nicewonger and hold it for payment of
the land, and look to Nicewonger for
payment for the land.
Under that agreement the deed was eX-
ecuted by Crossmore and accepted by
Castle. After this date Crossmore did
not intend to claim and did not claim any
lien whatever upon the land and prem
ises in the complaint mentioned for the
purchase price thereof, but looked en-
tirely to the note of defendant Nice
wonger for payment therefor.
The action was brought by theexecutor
of the last will of Crossmore against
Nicewonger, and the executors of tile last
will of Castle. to enforce veEtor's lien
upon the realty based upon the original
transfer to Nicewonger. Plaintiff ap-
pealed from the Judgment and order deny
ing his motion for new trial.
The Supreme Court sustains the lower
court.