Sayer v. Donahue

California Supreme Court

Sayer v. Donahue

1 Cal. Unrep. 410

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1868

DocketNo. 1534

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 410 (Sayer v. Donahue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sayer v. Donahue, 1 Cal. Unrep. 410 (Cal. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, C. J.

We have examined the transcript and the grounds specified in the statement on motion for new trial, and it is perfectly plain that there is no error in them. The defendants claim to have acquired plaintiff’s title through a sale by a constable for assessments, attempted to be made under the provisions of the act of April 2, 1866, “concerning partnerships for mining purposes”: Laws 1866, p. 828.

If it be conceded that the plaintiff was a member of the “Shamrock Mining Company” and subject to be assessed, the evidence is insufficient to show that he was notified in the manner required by sections 2 and 4, or either of them. And the sale was void on that ground.

There is no evidence to show a forfeiture, or abandonment. The case is so plain that no argument can help the appellants; and to give time would be to delay the case to no purpose, and to the injury of respondents.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, J.; Rhodes, J.; Crockett, J.; Sprague, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAWYER, C. J.

We have examined the transcript and the grounds specified in the statement on motion for new trial, and it is perfectly plain that there is no error in them. The defendants claim to have acquired plaintiff’s title through a sale by a constable for assessments, attempted to be made under the provisions of the act of April 2, 1866, “concerning partnerships for mining purposes”: Laws 1866, p. 828.

If it be conceded that the plaintiff was a member of the “Shamrock Mining Company” and subject to be assessed, the evidence is insufficient to show that he was notified in the manner required by sections 2 and 4, or either of them. And the sale was void on that ground.

There is no evidence to show a forfeiture, or abandonment. The case is so plain that no argument can help the appellants; and to give time would be to delay the case to no purpose, and to the injury of respondents.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, J.; Rhodes, J.; Crockett, J.; Sprague, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sayer-v-donahue-cal-1868.