Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-05-09
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.
DEPARTMENT ONE.

FRIDAY, May 8, 1885.
Court met at 10 A. II. Present McKinstry, j.,
presiding: Ross j.; Mckee, j.: Mccarthy, Clerk
Finkler, Bgiih.
S014-De AIgucllo VS.. Bours ct al.-On motion
OF Budd, and there being no appearance for ap-
pellant, nor points or authorities on file, judg
ment and order affirmed.
9364-Hoult ct al. VS.. Baidwin-On motion Of
Campbell, appellant allowed thirty days to die
brief respondent thirty days to reply, case TO
be thereon submitted.
9612-White vs. Dosglas-On mot an of Bndd
appellant allowed twenty day. to file brief
respondent forty, days to .eply, cause to be
thereon submitted.
9622-McCaUley VS.. Cunningham-On motion
| of Campbell, appellant allowed twenty days to
| file brief, respondent twenty days to reply,
| cause TO he thereon submitted.
! 96i4-AXtell VS.. Gulach ct al.-Sane order.
| on briefs on file.
| g740-Montgomery vs. Locke ct aI.-Pursuant
| to stipulation filed herein, respondent allowed
| twenty days to file brief appellant ten days to
| reply. cause TO be thereon submitted.
| 9943-Melone VS.. DAWSON motion of Budd,
appellant allowed ten days TO file brief respond
ent five days TO reply, cause to be thereon sub
mitted.
| 1l,O1l-Ingles vs.. shepherd-On motion of
| Campbell, respondent allowed five days to file
brief, appellant fifteen days to reply cause to be
! thereon submitted.
! 11G30-Tide Land Reclamation Company vs.
Cunning for the session.
| 9534-Cook VS.. Lion Insurance COmpany-On
InOtlOll OF ' an Ness, appellant allowed twenty
days TO file brief, cause to be thereon submitted
It is further OF cred that on page 20, book A. at
folio CD A, in the manuscript in the testimony of
| John F. Cardwell, the words This wood was
worth II per cord in Sacramento be corrected
so as TO read This wood worth 81 per cord
| at Folsom, and from Sc % to IS so in SacIa
| mentO.'
9543-Haggin vs. RAYMOND ct al-On motion
of Beatty, cause submitted on briefs on file.
9554-Suliyan VS. Mier ct al.-On motion of
Martin, cause submitted on points and authori
ties on file
e5G2-Prindle VS.. Carey ct aI.-There being no
appearance FOR appellant and no points and au-
thorities on file ordered that the judgment and
order be affirmed
9575-Ah Lon VS.. Wooden motion of Free
man for appellant, attorneys for respondent con
senting, ordered that appeal herein be dis
missed.
9GO2-Kybers vs. Acknowledgement that APP
pellant be allowed twenty days to file reply
brief cause to be thereon submitted.
96l0-Mauldin VS.. CoX-On motion of Free
man, ordered submitted on points and authori-
ties on file.
9615-SGcTamento Lumber Company VS. Wag-
ner ct al.-Same order
S626-ReynOlds VS.. Lincoln-Same order.
9630-GWinn. administrator, VS.. Hamilton adj
ministrator-Same order.
9669-CoX vs.. Wood-Pursuant TO stipulation
filed herein, cause ordered submitted on briefs
now on file.
Freeman, appellant allowed twenty days to file
brief, respondent twenty days to reply, cause to
be thereupOn submitted.
S6o5-Sheld0n vs. hull-PurSuant to stipula-
ton, cause ordered submitted on briefs now on
file
gGs9-Estatc of Nelnes, deceased-Sane order.
9739-Coglan vs. Beard-On motion of Beatty
cause ordered submitted on points and authori-
ties file.
Si27-Ashurst vs. Fountain-Judgment and
order reversed and cause remanded for further
proceedings. McKinstry, J. We concur: Nc
Kee, j Ross, J.
DEPARTMENT Two
Present-Thornton, J.. presiding; Myrick. J..
Sharostein, j. Williams, Deputy Clerk; Finkler
Bailiff
u02LBatto vs.. yandamont: 11.O25-Ffnn vs..
SpagnOi: 954f-Cross vs.. ketts ct al; 9563-Dry-
fus vs.. Tomkins; 9970-Wils0n vs.. Atkinson;
9GfJ-DaYidsOn vs.. Deyine; 9gS2-Pendellar vs.
Alexanders0n; II ,0l2-Elnpirc C. and NJ. Co vs.
Bonanza c. N. Co.; IL ,02S-Wixon VS.. Devfne-
all ordered submitted upon briefs on file
953S-GinnOchiO vs.. Bright st al.-On motion
ordered appellant be allowed twenty days to file
brief; respondent twenty days to reply; appellant
ten days to answer, then cause to be submitted.
S19-Mckay Us. Joy-On motion OF rlnstrong
ordered appellant be allowed ten days to file
reply brief, cause to be theTeupon submitted.
u,0l4-Peasley vs. McFadden ct al-On mo
ton of Bennett, ordered respondent be allowed
to correct transcript in finding two of the Court
IN said cause by adding thereto the words, " to
plaintiff" Further ordered respondent be al
lowed twenty days to file brief; appellant. twenty
days TO reply; cause to be thereupon submitted
%25-Menk VS.. Com. Insurance Company:
McHk W. rome MUluaI insurance Company
Appellant ordered fifteen days TO file brief; re-
sPondent fifteen days to answer; appellant ten
days to reply.
g769- Cross IS. Observation-Disclosures to stipu-
lations, ordered appellant file points and
authorities on May S, 1885 respondents each
have twenty DAYS to reply.
gbA-Campbell ct Al. VS. Judd ct al-Submit-
ted on briefs on file.
9629-Ledu vs.. jim Yet Wa-Respondcnt al
lowed twenty days appellant ten TO reply.
9s06-GraliGer Us. RQnu-RespOndeut twenty |
days: appellant ten days. |
99l-Hoyt ys. Nevada County Narrow-Gauge !
Railroad Co1npany-Appellant twenty days, re |
spondent twenty days; cause to be then sub |
Titted.
g71S-D amsguard vs. OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES |
to file copy of original notice of motion for a |
new trial; further ordered cause to be sub
mitted on briefs on file
G01-SimpsOn vs.. Applegate-On motion of !
futile, ordered that appellant be allowed ten !
days to file brief, respondent ten days to reply;
cause to be thereupon submitted.
n,02l-GOlden State and Miners Iron Works
IS. Muir-Pursuant to stipulation filed herein,
appellant allowed fifteen days to file brief re-
5pondent fifteen days to answer, appellant five
days to reply.
9763-sierra Union W and NJ Company VS..
allowed thirty days to file
briet, respondent thirty days.
97ol-Zellerbach VS.. Allenberg ct al-Re-
'pondent fifteen days to file brief, appellant ff-
teen days to answer
9955-Judkins VS. Elliott-Appellant twenty
lays to file brief, respondent ten days to an
sWer.
Smith vs. Dunno sufficient reason appear
mandate was not made in the first instance to
he Superior Court, the application to this Court
IS denied by the Court.
Adjourned to 10 A. H. tomorrow.