Pef!'lAd.a,P.t,. Wh9lYas «:xec,lltor of hillfJlt'\1er's obtainedIllollel from 8 bank 011 the chepk,oflloth,lrd perSon, with he paid mortgagesdn hilj father's land, and thereof to hiInself, l'eceiving also a deed to the land frolIl tlle mortgagee. ',He depositeqthe mortgages with the bank a,s security "for the check. On its dishpnor he obtained money from plabitiff's' assignor with which to pay it, and assigned to him the mortgages, quitclaim deed; and a warranty deed to another tract, as security. The check was also sent to plaintiff's assignor, but ihe returlled,it payee. ' !f<Jw"that the 10!Ul was made and Dot to the drawer of the the securities bound defendant and the la1llL
In Equity. On bill for foreclosure. Edwin B. Gager, for plaintiff. Wm. F. Hurlbut, for defendants.
J'. This is ll. bill in eqnity for the foreclosnre of mortgages llPtm real estate. Prior to April 11, 1881,. Joseph W. Hurlbut had mortgaged his homestead in Winchester, Oonn., to the Winsted Savings Bank, by two mortgages, to secure two notes for $1,000 and $500, respectivel!, RIld had died leaving a last wHl, by which he appoiIited his son Wilham F. Hurlbut his executor, and devised one-third of said land to him, and one-third to him as trustee for WarrenP. HUrlbut, and said savings bank had obtained Ii decree for the forecwsure of said mortOn said day Joseph M. Hurlbut, of Brooklyn, N. Y., another son of Joseph W. , delivered to said William F. a check of Henry' A. Taylor upon a bank in Rochester, N.Y.,.for the sum of $2,600, to the order Of J' oseph M., and by him indorsed,' and' also subsequently indorsed by said William F. The money upon said check was advanced to' William F .by the Hurlbut National Bank of Winsted, and, with the exceptionol about $30, was paid to said savings batik for an assigtlment of said mortgages, and in payment Of a mortgage of about $500 upon another piece of land which had been executed by William F. individsavings bank quitclaimed their interest in said mortgaged homestead 'to William F'. The two mortgage notes ana deeds of said preri;lises were delivered to said national bank to be held in escrow for the time;, and, to become, if need be,security for the payment of said was unpaid, and earnest demand was immediately made William F. for payment. Joseph M. induced Henry F. Shoe",to' undertake to loan to WilHam F. the money to take up the chedk; Shoemaker sent his lawyer; Theodore B. Gatl;ls, to Winsted to make said loan; if the' sectirity sufficient. William F. wanted that Taylor should be Shoemaker's debtor, and that the securities should be assigned to Shoemaker, as security for the payment of Taylor's debt. Gates' thereupon returned to New York, but Shoemaker refused to accept Taylor as his debtor; and Joseph M. ineffectually attempted to induce Taylor to agree to indemnify William F. Thereupon, on April 26, 1881, Gates sent to William F. a certified check for $2,607.25, the amount of
Taylor's proteSted check, 'and interest and expenses thereon, whicliWilIlamdelivere'eJ, to ,said Hurlbut ,Bank, received the deeds of said mortgaged property, executed an absolute quitclaim deed of said homestead to said Shoemaker, and also an absolute warrantyAeed of piece; of real estate, as described in the bill of complaint, and sent to Gates' the two mortgagesotlctbe homestead, with the two notes and the wamtnty and 'quitclaim deeds and the Taylor check. Gates subsequently returned M.. The notes, and quitclaim deed the were security for the of the Shoemaker loan, and the warranty 'deed was, intended to be a.qditional security f()r sam,e. debt, if auch security was needed. Itwas accepted by Shoemaker as such security. "and was thereafter'recorded. Neither interest nor ,l'rinci,pal has .e,ver been paid loan of $2,607.25, but the is no)\' due., Said Shoemaker assigned, for value, all . debt and all. said security to the, J>lainti;ff', who, or .his assignor, hl:!-s paid taxes to the amount of $1,27.43, as alleged in the bill of complaint, upon said mortgaged 'real estate. , It is clahne<iby the plaintiffthat the fees andeipenses of said Gates, amounting to $120, were to become a part ofS\tid loan, were to be eluded in security, and were to be repaid by William F. Thenegptiatiolls 'Shoemaker. foraaid loan were conducted by Joseph M., who was anxious to preserve the homestead, and prevent its being lost tq the Hurlbut family, and I have no doubt that he promised repayof the$120j but it is not proved that William ,knew of or ratified promise; made himself responsible for the repayment. The only question in diilpute in the case is whether the loan of $2,607.25 was made to WilliamF. Or to Taylor, and whetherthedeeds and :Which were given by William were security for the payment of Taylor's or his own debt. The history of the transaction, and, especially, the testimony of Gen. Gates, leave no doubt in my mind that the theory of the plaintiff is the correct one. Let a decree be entered for the payment by said William F. to the plaintiff of $2,607.25, the interest thereoni said costs ofthis suit, within such reasonable time as shall be dt'.signated, a,rid, in default of such payment, for a foreclosure iq., aoc,oldancewith in the fourth count of the complaint.
UNITED STATES". RICHMOND MIN.
(Oii'cu4J, Court, D. Nevada. November 28, 188!).
Thedetel111!"Ilt, in mining, redllcing()reB, and reflpIllg bullionJ purohased wood and charcoal for UBe at its reduction works, The ana the wood from which the oharcoal was manufactured, were cut upon -tLDBUr.; '. I . yeyed j IM,UPl,I!,I¥J.8, or MValile exqept for the I$lin,era! mlnlDg dlstrlCtB, ()r far rem()te from, , 'minell. ··'!te«t,ltliat!thls waB;mlneralldDd within tllemeanlug-ot the act of·oongreaa
FOR MINING PURPOSBS:' ,