Slike strani

has complied with all the requirements of our law; and by having the proofs all ready in the clerk's office, he will save much vexation and facilitate the business of the Court.

When forty days have elapsed after the first day on which the foregoing notice was published, if no objections have been filed with the clerk to the prayer of the petitioner, on the day named in his notice, he, or his attorney, may ask the Court to grant the order prayed for in his petition, and, if no objections have been filed, as before stated, and the reasons for changing the name be satisfactory to the Court, he will sign an crder (which should be drawn up and presented to the Court), in something like the following:

Form 7.-Judgment.

A. D.

In the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the

County of Alameda: In the matter of the application of Hypolites Amarizah Higginbotham to change his name to Henry Buford. Now, on this

day of

1880, on motion of A_ B-, Esq., attorney for the petitioner Hypolites Amarizah Higginbotham, to change the petitioner's saiù name to Henry Buford, it appearing from the evidence, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the petition of said petitioner was duly filed with the clerk of this Court on the day of January, 1880, and that notice of the filing of said petition, with its object, the petitioner's present name and the name he desires to bear in future, was published in the -- a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which such petitioner resides, for a period of thirty days; and it further appearing, to the satisfaction of the Court, that ten days have elapsed since the completion of the publication of such notice, and that no objections have been filed with the clerk of this Court to said petition (or, if objections have been filed, that such objections have been overruled by the Court): Now, in consideration of the premises, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the prayer of the petitioner be granted, and that the name of the person heretofore known as Hypolites Amarizah Higginbotham be changed, and such name is hereby changed, to that of Henry Buford, by which name, Henry Buford, the said person shall hereafter be legally known and called.

Done in open Court, this — day of A. D. 188

Judge of said Superior Court.

The foregoing illustrates the manner of making a statutory law, and the practice following, or the manner of enforcing it; and, although one of the simplest forms of law has been chosen in order that any reader of ordinary intelligence might understand the whole process, yet the provisions of all statutory laws must be followed as carefully as we have attempted to follow out the requirements of this law. Legislatures make laws, and, if constitutional, the Courts enforce them, through their officers; but in order that the Courts may be enabled to enforce them, those persons who desire to avail themselves of the benefits of the laws must make application to the Courts, precisely in the manner required by the laws; for unless this be done, the Courts are powerless to act, or, if they act, their judgments will be irregular, if not void.



As we stated on a former page, there are many laws which the Courts will enforce, which are based either on customs so old that no man can remember how or when they originated, or on decisions of the Supreme Courts of the different States or of the United States; and such laws will continue to be enforced by the Courts until they are modified or repealed by the Legislature of the State.

For instance, we do not know when the rule was first establisbed that if one person agrees to purchase a piece of property from another and pays anything of value on the purchase to the other person, the latter can be compelled to deliver to the former the article purchased, upon tendering payment of the full balance of the contracted price; or, if the article be otherwise disposed of, so that the seller can not deliver it, the seller can be compelled to pay to the purchaser all damages which he may have sustained on account of the non-delivery of the article; for, although there may be no statutory law providing for such a case, yet, because common custom, long acquiesced in by the people, and the decision of the Courts, have established such a rule, on application to the Courts by the purchaser, they will compel the seller to deliver the article purchased or to pay damages for neglecting so to do. On the other hand, if the purchaser refuse to complete the purchase after having paid any part, the seller can deliver the goods sold, and, on application to the Courts, they will compel the purchaser to pay for them whatever he agreed to pay, unless the qualities of the goods were misrepresented to him.

“Fraud vitiates every contract," and courts will not sustain any contract which parties have been induced to make by fraudulent representations.

Let us suppose a case : Amos Grant and William Jones live near Bodie, in Mono County, California. Mr. Grant has cows, pigs and chickens ; Mr. Jones wishes to purchase some of them, and he agrees to pay to Mr. Grant sixty dollars for a certain cow; fifteen dollars for three certain pigs, and six dollars for twelve chickens, and pays twenty-five cents down to Mr. Grant “to bind the bargain.” The payment and acceptance of the twenty-five cents binds both parties to fulfill the contract. We will suppose that this agreement took place on the third day of January, 1880, in the presence of James Johnson, and that Mr. Grant agreed to deliver all the chattels at Mr. Jones's “corral” on the next Monday. That on the fifth day of January, 1880, Mr. Grant delivered the chattels at Mr. Jones's “corral" and demanded payment of the balance of the purchase-money agreed upon, but Mr. Jones, not acting on the golden rule, refuses to pay. How will Mr. Grant obtain his pay? He must bring a suit for it, and as the value of all the chattels is less than two hundred dollars, he must bring his action in a Justice's Court, and in the town where Mr. Jones resides. There are two Justices of the Peace in Bodie, and Mr. Grant can bring his action before either, as he may choose. There are also two forms of complaint, either of which he can adopt, and file with the Justice of his selection ; but whichever form of complaint he may choose, it will be better for him to verify it, for should he not do so, Mr. Jones might file any kind of an answer without regard to the truth of it, and thus delay the collection of the money. But if the complaint be sworn to, the answer, to be of any value, must also be verified, or, when the time expires for answering, the Court will, on slight proof, or none at all, give judgment against the defendant.

We will now give the two forms of complaint suggested, verify them both, and let Mr. Grant, who will be called the “plaintiff,” take his choice.

Form 8.-Account Filed as a complaint.

BODIE, Cal., Jan. 5, 1880. WM. JONES, To Amos GRANT,

Dr. Jan. 5, 1880, to one cow.

$60 00 to three pigs, @ $5 each...

15 00 to twelve chickens, 50 cts each..

6 00 Total.....

$81 00

Cr. Jan. 3, 1880, by cash....


Balance due..

$80 75

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Amos Grant, being first duly sworn, says that the above is a just, true and correct account of the indebtedness of William Jones to him, and that the sum of eighty dollars and seventyfive cents is now due affiant from said Jones, on the said account.

AMOS GRANT. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7th day of January, A. D. 1880.


Justice of the Peace.

Form 9.-Complaint.

In Justice's Court, Township of Bodie, County of Mono, and

State of California, before R. L. Peterson, Esq., Justice
of the Peace.

Amos Grant,


VS. William Jones,


Amos Grant, the plaintiff above named, complains of William Jones, the defendant in this action, a resident of Bodie township, in Mono county, State of California, and for cause of action, says: That on or about the third day of January, 1880, at said town of Bodie, this plaintiff bargained, sold and delivered to said defendant, at defendant's special instance and request, certain chattels of the full value of eightyone dollars in gold coin, to wit: one cow of the value of sixty dollars ; three pigs of the value of fifteen dollars, and twelve chickens of the value of six dollars; that said defendant then and there undertook and promised to pay to plaintiff the said sum of money in gold coin whenever requested so to do; that plaintiff has often requested the defendant to pay the said sum of money; but to pay the same, or any part thereof, except the sum of twenty-five cents, the said defendant bas hitherto wholly neglected and failed, and still does neglect and fail, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of eighty dollars and seventy-five cents in gold coin. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against said

defendant for the sum of eighty dollars and seventy-five cents in gold coin, besides costs of this action.


Attorney for Plaintiff.


« PrejšnjaNaprej »