Opinion of the Court. days work in the employ of the Vallejo Co-operative Ship Building Association, when the three-masted schooner now in course of construction by said association is sold. This certificate when properly indorsed is payable to bearer. "JOSEPH PERKINS, President. "ORIN C. JUNKINS, Secretary." The plaintiff purchased a large number of these certificates, and in March, 1875, brought this action to recover judg ment in gold coin on them. The defendants claimed that the certificates were not due, as the vessel was not yet sold. The court found that the defendants did not use reasonable diligence in the construction of the vessel, and did not make an honest effort to sell it at its market value, and rendered judgment, in gold coin, for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. J. F. Wendell, for the Appellants. Where time is given for payment upon agreement to give security, which agreement is broken, the remedy is suit for damages for breach of the agreement, but the original debt does not thereby become due, and suit upon it cannot be maintained till the period of credit has expired. (Mussen v. Price, 4 East, 146; Hanna v. Mulls, 21 Wendell, 90.) George A. Lamont, for the Respondent. Defendants were bound to use diligence and dispatch in the construction and sale of the vessel. (Nunez v. Dantel, 19 Wallace, 561.) By the COURT: The defendants were entitled to only reasonable time in which to finish and sell the schooner, and that time having elapsed, the plaintiff could maintain this action. (19 Wall. 560.) But the appellants claim in their points on file that there was no evidence whatever going to sustain the third finding, to the effect that by the agreement of the parties the demand Opinion of the Court. sued for was to be paid in gold coin, and this was the first ground of their motion for a new trial in the court below. The case was submitted here without oral argument. The respondent in his printed points has not adverted to this position of the appellants. If there be in the voluminous record on file any evidence going to support the finding in the respect referred to, the respondent should have pointed it out. It is not our business to institute a search to find it. Cause remanded, with directions to modify the judgment by striking out the gold coin clause therein. Remittitur forthwith. REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT JANUARY TERM, 1877. [No. 4,676.] GEORGE K. PORTER v. STEPHANO GARRISSINO, Defendant, AND JOHN MCDERMOTT, INTERVENOR. EJECTMENT.- In ejectment, the matter in litigation is the alleged right to the possession of the demanded premises on the part of the plaintiff, and his ouster by the defendant, and not the land. INTERVENTION IN EJECTMENT.- In ejectment, a person who is in no way connected with the right of possession asserted by the plaintiff or the defendant, but, on the contrary, alleges title in himself paramount to both, cannot intervene. APPEAL from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. answer. Ejectment to recover a lot on Fifteenth Street, between Valencia and Guererro streets, city and county of San Francisco. The defendant Garrissino was defaulted for failure to McDermott intervened, and in his pleading, called an answer in the transcript, he denies the title of both the plaintiff and defendant to a part of the demanded premises, and avers that he is, and that he and his predecessors in interest have been, for more that five years, in the adverse possession of such part of the demanded premises. The plaintiff objected to the intervention, but the court overruled the objection, and, after a trial, rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for that part of the demanded premises not claimed by the intervenor, and in favor of the intervenor for his costs. The plaintiff appealed. [559] |