California Supreme Court, 1854

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

California Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1854 · Heydenfeldt, Murray, Wells

4 Cal. 294

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railway Co. (Ind. 1888)
Chesney v. Chesney (Utah 1908)
Malott v. Sample (Ind. 1905)
Rietman v. Bangert (Ind. Ct. App. 1901)
State v. Trueblood (Ind. Ct. App. 1900)
Leadville Water Co. v. City of Leadville (Colo. 1896)
Jackson School Township v. Farlow (Ind. 1881)
Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co. (Cal. 1863)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.