Shafer v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.

4 Cal. 294
California Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1854·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court.

-Mr. Cb. J. Murray and Mr. J. Wells concurred.

There is no express covenant in tbe mortgage to pay tbe money, and no action will, therefore, lie on its mere [296] recital of *the existence of the debt. Tbe declaration contains no averment of indebtedness, except by way of recital, and it avers no consideration to support tbe promise. Tbe Court, therefore, erred in instructing tbe juiy that tbe mortgage sued on contained a sufficient recognition of an existing debt to authorize a recovey. (See 4 Kent, 145.)

Tbe judgment is reversed and tbe cause remanded.

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

Shafer v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co., 4 Cal. 294 (Cal. 1854).

4 Cal. 294 (Shafer v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chesney v. Chesney
94 P. 989 (Utah Supreme Court, 1908)
Malott v. Sample
74 N.E. 245 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)
Rietman v. Bangert
59 N.E. 1080 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
State v. Trueblood
57 N.E. 975 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Leadville Water Co. v. City of Leadville
22 Colo. 297 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Kendall
36 N.E. 415 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Jackson School Township v. Farlow
75 Ind. 118 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co.
22 Cal. 620 (California Supreme Court, 1863)