Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-08-25
PURCHASER WITHOUT
NOTICE is PROTECTED,
SAYS SUPREME COURT

,srxo,.. cosssssososncs 70 nosN,ra jouHrAp
Santa Fe, Aug. 24.-The state SUI
preme court Saturday handed down
Two Important opinions {. w. hetter-
\ ing Mercantile company, appellant
VS.. w. A. Sheppard. ct al. appellees
from Sierra county, IN when the
case Is remanded to the lower court
, with Instructions to enter yudemeh'
for s455. and Katherine Chetham.
STROBE, appellee. VS.. J. J. Flake ana
Mrs. Lizzie Blake, appellants from
pona Ana county. In which thc JUG
ment Of the trial court ~ AFFIRMED.
The latter opinion is by chief Justice
Clarence j. Roberts and the former
by Supreme Court Justice Richard
II. Hanna.
Statement Of Facts.
on August 6, 1908. John Francis
Findlay was the actual record owner
Of the real estate involved In this liti-
cation. on that date he conveyed the
same by warranty deed to the APP
pellee herein. who. however. did not
lodge the said deed for record until
December Z. 1903. On November 70,
| 1908, Martha Lehman sued Findlay
in the district court OF Dona ana
county, on an open account then due
and on the same day a writ OF AT
tachment was issued In the said suit
against Findlay. On November ~.
| 1908. this writ was levied on the land
in question. On April Z, 1904, hnal
| Judgment was rendered. in said sun
against Findlay, foreclosing the at,
tachment lien. and, under writ OF
/ venditioni exponas issued at the fool
| of this Judgment, the land was SOLD
by the sheriff to Martin Lehman, and
thereafter, on June II. 1904, the sher-
liff executed to Lehman a sheriff's
deed to the same. On July 2, l9Vs
Martin Lehman and wife conveyed
the land by their warranty deed. e
]. J. Blake and j. a. Blake. j.
Blake died, leaving as his only heli
Lizzie Blake.
Appellee herein has been in pos
session of the land since she insti'
tuted the present suit TO a quiet title
TO the same. against the adverse claim
of j. ]. and Lizzie Blake, which claim
as Indicated. grew out OF the attach
ment proceedings
Tho trial court. upon issue joined
heard the evidence and rendered
4 Judgment for appellee, from when
judgment this appeal Is prosecuted
The kettering Case.
This Is an action, as set out In the
. complaint, to recover for an ice boz
; sold appellees at the contract price
of Misunderstanding material 10 Nc
used in connection there"lth irol'
thc factory at Waterloo. Ia, TO Oma-
ha, Neb., in the sum OF Ssu,Sv. iiah
ing an aggregate sum OF spoV'oV, W
! which the complaint prays recover
The defendants, by their answer
admit an agreement TO purchase ~
Il ice box or cooler and sufficient MAJ
teral to ifsulate certain pipes " M n,..
: nection Herewith but deny llabliits
for freight charge and further SCI W
II Tint the ice box or cooler toselhei
with the Insulating material was &c
, be furnished for a consideration OF
ss1s defendants to pay freight from
HI )maha. Neb.. and that iailure 70
II conform to specifications resulteu ~
!, damages to the amount Of WOW
descendants put In counter claim
Lar S1450. 90. based upon damages fol-
alleged breach of contract between
the same parties for the Installation
: ~ certain ice and refrigerating APP
/, pnratus. which contract, It was as,
! Serted had been broken in divers ana
sundry respects. AT the trial me i'en'
for freight, referred to in complain
was eliminated and no appeal lakel
7 from The courts ruling in thal re-
, spect. ,.. -
The court instructed the Jury thal
N must find for plaintiff for not less
than $515. but might deduct ireii
: this .atflount damages up to SfV'Vo io'
, family blue prints; damages MOI eA'
eecdinp $1,000 for loss OF pfoiits
caused by delay In the chipmeh' o.
ice making plant; and. damages no
/. exceeding s117.00 for failure OF the
: III plant to make ice as stipulated ~
/, NJ time and quantity, IN the eontrac.
:. The Jury returned a verdict snins
Inc defendants The maximum oaii''
| ages mentioned in the court , ns,
structions and finding that plalhlii'
was entitled to recover from the ~
fendants The sum Of $30S.ov. rron
the Judgment for said sum OF sooo.Ve
lin favor of plaintiff plaih'iii sue'
out his appeal. 81, a,s.
The cause is renlandeu =" 10y ~
/. trict court with instructions ~ 49,
! Judgment in favor OF pialhtit, y. ~
snm of S475.00. together WIN in,er
; est from the date Of the, orisiha
! Judgment ,..
An Instruction to the Jury III,
tha nlaintiff has established ms rish'
; ia ia recover 5000 for the purc,n = g
nrice If the Insulating material, ne
/, no. based upon conflicting evident
wnnld no comment on the Weish'
~ M evidence and erroneous unaei
Saction 1884. c. L. 1891.
3 Loss Of profits growing gu. >
breach of contract and resu''ih =.
to an unestablished business are .,
!. TOO uncertain a character 70 e,, eu"', =
tute basis for the co'np''a''o" =
: damages for breach. -.
, '''"s sylIahus BY the Court: :,
: sections ASS. 1851 and 1857 Z. I
: ' He,d mat section 1850. which wa
anacted ns Section 49, Of me ~. e.. 2
January ia. 1852. "Resulas ,,,,sa con ;,
+ yeyances,,' should be construed ana y y
Z Connection with Sections u ana y