The record-union., 1893-04-25
A CASE TWICE DECIDED.
The First Judgment Reversed and
the Next Affirmed.
An Agent for the Sale of Land Pro-
cures Blank Deed and In
serts His Own Name.

The Supreme Court filed its decision
yesterday in Deputy Clerk Govan's Office
in the case of w. 6. Burke (appellant) VS..
b. w. Bours ct al, San Joaquin County
case. In its decision the Supreme Court
says:
when this action was here upon the
last appeal (92 Cal. 10S) the facts before
the court were that Bours had been en-
ployed by Faulkner, Bell Il Co., who
were agents of Arguello, to make sale
OF the land, and had reported to them
sale thereof for the sum of $500, send
ing at the same time form of deed to
be executed by Arguello, without, how
ever, inserting the amount of the consid-
Grafton or the name of the grantee; that
when Bours received the deed, he caused
his own name TO be inserted therein as
grantee, and sent his check for the
amount of the purchase money to Faux
ner, Bell & Co., who accounted for the
same to Arguello.
The judgment of the court below was
reversed upon the ground that Bours was
to be regarded as the agent of Arguello
for making sale of the land. and could
not, as such agent, make sale to him
self.
After the cause went down another trial
was had, and in addition to the facts
found upon the preceding trial, the court
found that when Bours sent the deed to
Faulkner, Bell Il Co. Tor execution, he
had negotiated sale ofthe property to one
Ahumaja for the sum of $500, but that
when he received the deed, after it had
been signed by Arguello, Ahumaja re-
fused to consummate the purchase;
that thereupon Bours had his own name
rfAN INns 1A q. Il
wrote to Faulkner, Bell IL Co. informing
them of his failure 10 complete the sale,
and that he had his own name inserted
in said deed as grantee, and that, if this
was agreeable to Mr.. Arguello, he would
take said property and pay the said sum
of 81, 800 therefor, and that if it was not
agreeable to Mr.. Arguello he would re-
turn the said deed to him; that a few days
thereafter he received letter from Faulk-
ner, Bell IL Co., inclosing one from Ar
guello, in which Arguello stated that he
was satisfied with Mr.. Bours as the pur-
chaser OF said property, and that he was
glad he had purchased it, and all that he
(Arguellol wanted was to receive his
money; that upon the receipt of this let
ter Bours caused the deed, which he had
in the meantime kept in his possession,
to be placed on record, and Immediately
RENTED the $4,000 To Faulkner, Bell Il
Co., and entered into the possession of the
property, and has since remained in pos
session of the whole thereof; that upon
receipt of the moneys by Faulkner, Bell
" Co., they informed Arguello that they
had received from Bours the sum of "a, 800
as the proceeds of said property, and had
placed the same to his credit, and that
Arguello Immediately acknowledged the
receipt of such information.
The court also finds that the said Jose
K. Arguello, prior TO the payment of the
said purchase money by the said Bours,
had full knowledge and notice that said
B. w. Bours name had been inserted in
said deed as the grantee therein named
after the signing thereof; and at the time
of the receipt OF said purchase price said
Arguello had full knowledge and notice
that said Bours was the grantee named
in said deed, and had full knowledge and
notice of all the facts and circumstances
surrounding the said transaction.
Judgment was thereupon rendered in
favor OF the defendants, and the plaintiffs
have appealed therefrom, bringing up
the evidence in bill of exceptions and
specifying therein that ii is insufficient
to sustain certain of the findings. There
was, however, testimony before the court
below supporting the above findings,
and the Judgment of that court, both up
on the weight of that testimony, as well
as upon the credibility of the witnesses,
cannot be reviewed here"
The Supreme Court then reviews the
case and findings at great length, and in
conclusion affirms the decision OF the
lower court, saying in conclusions:
LAS the sale from Arguello to Bours is
to be regarded as made upon direct
dealing between them for the purchase
and sale of the property, the rules gov
by principal of the act of his agent have
no application,D