Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-20
CURTIS L CLUNIE'S FEE.
a Long standing Yexation of the City
Settled by the Supreme Court.


Settled by the Supreme Court.
The case of Curtis & Clunie against the
city of Sacramento to collect fee for de-
tending the city against what is known as
the - Hoagland claims" which were for
damages alleged to have been occasioned
by the Strengthening of the American river
channel, has been decided by the Supreme
Court in favor of the city. The demands
were all barred by Limitation, but the Legis-
lature of 1876 by an Act authorized Hoag-
land and six others to institute suits for
some $4,000 notwithstanding the bar OF
limitations. Creed Raymond was employed
by the city to defend the suits. Subse-
quently Curtis K Clunie were retained.
Each party received $500 retainer. The
suits were argued upon demurrer, and d.
murrer sustained by both the Superior ard
Supreme Courts. Creed Raymond was paid
50 500 additional fees, and Curtis & Ciunic
demanded $4,000. On December 81, 1877,
the demand was rejected by the Trustees.
An arbitration was then agreed upon be
tween Mayor Turner and Curtis Il Clunie.
Rob't Hamilton and Ham. c. Harrison were
appointed arbitrator, and not agreeing,
Fred Cox was called in as the third
arbitrator. These arbitrator met and
awarded s. 900 10 Curtis IL Gluaie. When
4 demand was made upon the Trustees for
the $4,000, City Attorney W. a. Anderson
and A. F. Catlin advised the Trustees not
TO pay the award Suit was commenced
on the award and tried before the late
Judge Il. C. Clark. the plaintiffs being rep
resented by Freeman q Bates, and the de
Tense by w. A. Anderson and \. 7. Catlin.
1t was in this case that the proposition was
first raised, that the common law rule re-
garding arbitrations does not obtain in this
State Mr.. Anderson first presenting the
proposition. Judgment was rendered for
the city. plaintiffs appealed to the SUI
preme Court, wherein the judgment was
affirmed. While the appeal was pending,
Curtis &; Clunie filed another complaint,
ignoring the award, and asking $40 GOO on
q qua1ititm nerUt A demurrer was inter
posed but overruled. Defendant then an
swered, setting up the statute of iimita-
tons, and also pleading in bar the former
suit ON award. The case was tried before
Judge Mcfarland. Freeman & Bates for
plaintiffs and A. 2. Catlin and W. a. An
derson for the defense. At the trial a num-
Der of noted lawyers were called as wit
nesses to establish 4 large fee. Judge McFar
land decided against the plaintiffs, who
again appealed to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court used the exact language of
Judge Mcfarland, saying: " We agree
with the learned Judge below. The argu-
ment to arbitrate does not contain any such
acknowledgment of pre-existing debt as
will support general implied promise TO
pay it" when there is q written ac
acknowledgement of debt, not coupled with
any promise, the law will imply general
promise to pay but when the acknowledg-
ment is accompanied by particular prom
Use, the law will imply none other. . 3
1t cannot therefore be construed to
be a new or continuing contract to pay
upol former obligation" The opinion
of the Court is by McKinstry, concurred in
by Ross and Myrick.