Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-06
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.
Dannrfu1e,af No
SAX EpAxc1sco Eehrn.

SAN FRANCISCO, February Sd.
6o57-Kellogg VS.. Meyers-on motion Of Gunni-
son for respondent it is ordered that remittitur
issue forthwith.
6003-Dowd vs. Maynard, Auditor, etc-Motion
of Quint on behalf OF appellant for dismissal of
appeal herein, argued and submitted
6504-6665- of the Fifteenth avenue extern
sion-On motion of Crittenden for respondents, or
dered that the hearing herein be set for Wednesday,
February II, 1880.
60l5-Pauson VS.. Nunan-Argued by Brooks for
appellant and Barber for respondent, and ordered
that Judgment and order be reversed and cause re-
manded for new trial.
6020 Helbing VS.. Syea Fire Insurance Company
Argued by Winans for appellant and Freidenrich for
respondents and submitted.
Department No. 2.
57S9-Bancroft vs. Heringhi-Judgment and order
refusing new trial reversed, and the Court below is
directed to grant new trial.
5969-Page VS.. Tucker-0rder granting new
trial reversed.
5i11-Feton ct al. VS.. Robnson-on motion OF
Lake, respondent allowed to withdraw a copy of the
record herein.
60sS-Leonard VS. Tyler-Motion to dismiss appeal
herein upon Clerks certificate and motion on file
ordered by the Chief Justice to be heard in Depart
ment No. , Motion argued by olney for respond
ent and Harpham for appellant, and motion denied
without prejudice.
59S5-Hansen VS.. Martin-on motion of Tomp-
kins for appellant cause submitted, with ten days
to each to file briefs.
B. P. Rankin admitted to practice on motion of
Hon. W. W. Cope and production Of license from
the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.
62l5-Hibernia Savings and Loan Society VS..
Hayes ct al.-on motion of Hayes for appellant and
suggestion of death OF William Hayes, one of the
executors of Ellen Jobson, deceased, ordered that
this be continued as against the estate of said
Ellen Jobson, deceased in the name OF Dennis Jor-
dan surviving executor.
6S33-Root, Nelson & Co. VS.. Bryan ct al-Order
to show cause argued by Cope for appellants and
Freeman for respondents and submitted.
Department No. l.
WEDNESDAY, February 4th.
Paulson VS.. Haskin On motion of Banding for
appellant and affidavit on file, ordered that appel
lants have ten days further time within which to
and file transcript of appeal herein.
6043-Parrott vs. Floyd ct al.-Argued by Bergin
for appellant and Cope for respondent and continued
until tomorrow for further argument.
THURSDAY, February 9TH.
6lI5-Dougass VS.. Fulda- Ordered that this cause
be heard at the same time with Douglass VS.. Fulda,
No. 60SS.
6oi3-Parrott vs. Floyd-Argumeut continued by
Bergin for appellant and Cope for respondent, and
cause submitted
60SO-Dingley VS.. Green 6031-Dingley vs. Green
Ordered that these cases be continued until Mon
day. February 8, 1880.
6070-wood VS.. Oxford ct al.-On motion of Tyler
for appellant, and there being appearance on the
part OF the respondent it is ordered that this cause
be placed at the foot OF the calendar.
Bateman VS.. Superior Court of San Francisco
Argued by Brown for respondent and pending ar
gument the Court took recess.
Mcdowell K, Venabe admitted to practice on mo-
ton of J. II. Meredith, and license from the Su-
pre- ne Court of Virginia.
6915--Pauson vs. Neuman-Opinion fled.
Department No. 9.
WEDNESDAY, February 4th
5977-Brady VS.. Bartlett ct al.-Argued by Parker
and Shafter for appellant and Bartlett for respond
ents and cause submitted.
69S2-Preston ct al VS.. Eureka Artificial Stone
Company Argued by Moore for appellant and Van
DYKE for respondent, and cause submitted.
Spinetti vs. Brignardeli-On motion of SpliNalo for
appellant and affidavit on fle ordered that appel.
liant have ten DAYS further time III which to serve and
file transcript on appeal herein.
Department No. ?.
THURSDAY, February 9Th.
59I3-Stewart ct al VS.. Mahoney Mining Com
acknowledgement affirmed
6934-Ford vs. Santa Cruz Railroad Company
Motion to dismiss appeal herein upon Clerks GER
tfcate and notice OF motion on fiie ordered by the
Chief Justice to lie heard in Department No. q
Motion argued by Rogers for respondent and
Younger for appellant, and motion denied
$685. Remer vs. Hardy-Argued by Tuttle for APP
pellant and Hayes for respondent and appeal dis
missed.
Ford Vs. Santa Cruz Railroad Company-Ou mo-
ton of Younger for appellant, ten days further
time allowed in which to serve and file transcript on
annual barain