The record-union., 1893-03-23
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
New Trials Granted in Two Fresno
County Gases.
The Lower Court Sustained in the
Case of Ellen L. Riley VS..
f. MartfneIli.

The Supreme Court has ordered new
trial IN the case of j. j. Reyburn, appel
liant, VS.. Jane E. Booker, respondent.
The judgment of the Superior Court of
Fresno County was for defendant, and
the appeal is from the judgment and
an order denying plaintiffs motion for
new trial.
The opinion says: "This cause sub
mitted and decided in the court below
upon the evidence heard in No. lS,0S3
lGordons, administrators, VS.. Jane Z.
Booker, under stipulation of counsel,
and is submitted here upon the same
briefs by appellant-no brief for respond
ent.
Upon the authority of Gordons (ad-
ministratorsl VS.. Booker, No. 1S,0S3, the
judgment and order appealed from are
reversed and new trial granted"
The opinion is signed by Justices Ca
ROUTE, Harrison and Paterson.
RILEY VS.. MARTINELLI
The Supreme Court has affirmed the
decision of the Superior Court of Yolo
County in the case of Ellen l.. Riley, ap
pellant, VS.: f. Martinelli, respondent.
The opinion says: '"Ihis action is
brought to obtain Judgment decreeing
Ellen L. Riley. appellant, to be the owner
of certain premises situate in Woodland;
that Sheritf's sale thereof to defend
ant, +. MartinelG, be declared null and
void, etc.
s,"About January, 1850, plaintiff and her
husband negotiated for the purchase of
the premises in question, which negotia-
uons eliminated in the purchase and
paying for the same by the plaintiff, who
took a deed of conveyance therefor in
the name Of her husband, which deed
was duly recorded.
The purchase price of the land was
1915. The plaintiff also, according to her
testimony. built dwelling-house upon
the land at an expense of 81 900, which was
also paid for by her out of her separate
property.
Plaintiff and her husband occupied
the premises as a family residence UP to
the time of the levy of the execution,
which was known to defendant, but there
was nothing in the manner or method OF
the residence or occupation or use OF the
property which impaired, or tended to
lmpart, notice to any person that plaintiff
had, or claimed to have, any separate
property interest or estate in or TO said
premises.
There was private understanding
between plaintiff and her husband, be-
fore the conveyance, that the title to the
premises should be conveyed to the lat
ter. Plaintiff often requested her
said husband to make such conveyance,
but he failed and neglected to do so.
Plaintiff stated to her friends that she
claimed said premises as her property,
but such claim was not openly pro-
claimed, was not known by the defend
ant, Martinellt, or by the public gen.
orally.
defendant, Martinelli. held a mort
gage against property OF the husband, j.
7. Riley, other than the premises in ques-
ton, which he foreclosed, and under
which lie sold, and there being a de-
hcIency, judgment was docketed in his
favor and against J. T. Riley, upon
which judgment execution issued to the
Sheriff, who levied upon the premises in
question in this action, and III due time
and after proper notice sold the same as
by law required, said Martlnelli, the
judgment creditor, becoming the pur-
chaser for $, ,265 73, the amount of the
judgment and costs.
"a certificate of sale was issued to him
as purchaser, and duplicate thereof re-
corded in the office of the County Re-
corder of the County of Yolo. The time
Tor redemption expired July 10, 1881, and
no redemption was made or had.
Before purchasing the property, Mar
tinelli examined the records of the
county and found it stood in the name of
the husband, J. I. Riley, and that there
was mortgage thereon executed by the
latter.
The findings show that Martinelli, up
to the time of his purchase. had no notice
OF any equitable claim OF plaintiff in or
to the premises. MarUinelli received a
Sherifs deed of the premises after the
filing of the original complaint herein,
but before the amended complaint was
filed, viz: August ), 1891.
LAS between the plaintiff and her hus-
band there is no question but that the
latter held the legal title TO the premises
in trust for the former.''
Alter reviewing the testimony, the
court says: 1T is believed the cause
was fairly tried and properly decided
and that the order overruling the motion
for new trial and the judgment should
be affirmed and are affirmed"
ANOTHER FRESNO COUNTY CASE.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion
signed by Justices Garoutte, Harrison
and Paterson, overrules the decision of
the lower court in the case of Alexander
Gordon, administrator, with the will an
nexed, of the estate of James H. Hamil-
ton, deceased, appellant, VS.. Jane Z.
Booker, respondent
The action was brought by plaintiff to
quiet title TO certain lots in the Central
Addition 10 the City of Fresno The de-
fendant had Judgment, and the plaintiff
appeals from the judgment and an order
denying his motion for a new trial.
The court, after reviewing the case.
says: "1t does not appear that either
party had actual possession of the strip
in controversy, whilst the constructive
possession of each extended only to the
true line. The findings discussed herein
are not justified by the evidence, and the
judgment and order appealed from are
reversed and new trial granted"