The attorneys who had thus far conducted the litigation
on behalf of George Donner, were greatly embarrassed because of their
inability to fully prove the delivery of the grant to him, or to some
one for him, the courts of the State having, from the first, litigation
concerning similar grants, laid down and adhered to the rule that such
grants did not take effect unless the original grant was delivered to
the grantee. Such proof was therefore deemed indispensable.
After such proofs upon this point as were accessible had been made, the
proceedings had ceased, and for several months there had been no
prospect of any further progress being made. During this time, one
Yonti, who had undertaken to recover possession of the lot at his own
expense for a share of it, had the management of the case, and had
employed an attorney to conduct the litigation. Yontz became unable,
pecuniarily, to proceed further with the case, and informed Donner of
the fact, whereupon the latter induced his brother-in-law, S. O.
Houghton, to attempt to prosecute his claim to some final result. Mr.
Houghton applied to the court to be substituted as attorney in the case,
but resistance was made by the attorney of Yontz, and the application
was denied. Houghton then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of
mandate to compel the judge of the court before which the suit was
pending, to order his substitution as attorney of record for Donner.
Pages:
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325