Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-05-06
SUPREME COURT.
DEPARTMENT ONE.

SACRAMENTO, May 5, 1856.
court met pursuant to adjournment at 10 A. N.
Present-Morilson.. &C. j., presiding: Myrick, j.;
Meklnstry, j.; Pauisell, Deputy Clerk; Finkler,
Bailiff.
Swamp Land District No 307 vs.. Gwynn ct al.
on motion OF Armstrong, ordered referred TO
Court Commissioner
II, 5s3-Gould VS. Den-Assigned tn Depart-
ment One by Chief Justice. ON motion of Den
son, and production of Clerks certificate or
dered appeal dismissed
1,I4-State of California VS. Folsom Water
rover Company-Ordered appellant allowed
- DAYS to file brief respondent 10 days to reply,
cause to be submitted
H'l,6-Johnson VS.. Walden-Respondent al
lowed 20 days to file brief appellant five days to
reply, cause to be thereon submitted.
Il,E1-Lamet VS.. Miller and wife-Ordered APP
peIant De allowed 30 days to file brief, cause TO
be thereon submitted.
1l,19l-Doland VS. Mooney ct al-Ordered APP
Pellant be allowed 10 days to file brief, cause to
be thereon submitted.
l1,19S-Richards ct al. VS.. Shear-Ordered ap-
pellant nve days TO file krief respondent % days
TO reply, appellant five days to reply thereto,
cause to be thereon submitted.
u,lS9-State OF California VS.. Smith, Jr.. ct al.
ordered respondent be allowed 10 days to file
brlei, cause TO be thereon submitted.
ui2i2-Cook VS.. Mckinney-Ordered appel
liant be allowed until June /. 1856, to file brief,
respondent 20 days TO reply thereto, cause to be
thereon submitted
1l,45-Beckman vs. skaggs-ordered re-
spondent be allowed so DAYS to file brief cause
10 be thereon submitted
II ,26I-Curtis ct al. vs. City of Sacramento
ordered appellant have 20 days to file brief,
spondent 30 days to reply, appellant 10 days to
reply thereto cause to be thereon submitted
1l,2s3-Todhunter VS.. State of California-Or-
dered appellant have 10 days to file brief, cause
10 be thereon submitted.
lI2oo-MIller vs.. Dunn, COntroller-OTdered
cause be submitted on briefs on file.
uo0t-Snlth ct al. VS.. Furnish ct al.-Ordered
appellant have 20 days to file brief, respondent
10 days TO reply, cause TO be thereon submitted.
Rl af Trfh NJ n
Gibson ct al-Ordered appellant be allowed I'M
I'll May 18th to file brief respondent 20 days to
reply, appellant ID days to reply thereto, cause
To be thereon submitted.
II, 3lS-Sanders VS.. Lansing-Ordered respond
ent have % days to file briefappellant 10 daysto
reply. cause to be thereon submitted
lio2S-People VS.. Clunie-ordered submitted
on briefs on file.
llS54--Meyer VS.. Porter ct al.-Dismissed on
stipulation on file.
n,376-Grandana VS.. Lovdal-Ordered appel
iahl be allowed 20 days to file brief, cause TO be
thereon submitted.
11412-Hausmeister vs.. Porter-Ordered APP
pellant be allowed five days to file brief re-
sp0ndent 10 days to replp, cause to be thereon
I1,ll6-Adams ct al vs. Sth British & Nat F.
q Nj. ms: Co.-OrdeTed appellant be allowed 80
days to file brief, respondent 10 days to reply,
appellant 10 days to reply thereto, cause to be
thereon submitted
11,4l4-McCants vs. Bush ct al.-Ordered re-
spondent - days TO file brief, cause TO be there
on submitted.
n,45-California State Bank VS. Hamburg
Bremen ms. Co.-Ordered appellant be allowed
70 days TO file brief respondent 20 days to reply,
appellant 70 days to reply thereto, cause to be
1l,49l-JohnsOn VS.. Klein-Ordered submitted
on brief on file.
H,5-4-Chandler VS.. Peoples Savings Bank
Ordered respondent be allowed 80 days to file
brief, cause TO be thereon submitted
ll.53o-Gaiiney VS.. ROach-0n motion of at
torney for appellant, ordered appeal be dis
missed
n,5lS-Lacey vs. Pacific Fire Insurance Com
pany-OTdered appellant be allowed 80 days 10
tile brief, respondent % days to reply. appellant
10 days to reply thereto, cause to be thereon
1l,56O-Board OF Commissioners of the Funded
Debt Sinking Fund VS.. Board Trustees of the
city of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT appellant have
one day to file briet, cause to be thereon sub
mitted.
1,572-Fisk, Jr., ct al. VS.. C. PR. r. Cor.
dered appellant have s. days to file brief re-
spondent 80 daysto reply, appellant 10 days to
reply thereto, cause TO be thereon submitted.
n515-Bates v. Plrter-Ordered appellant
have 30 days to file brief respondent Is days TO
reply canss to be thereon submitted.
9,ol2-Ieb'e Mountain and San AndreaS NJ
Co VS.. Cnayenne-Ordered appellant have 20
days TO file briefres Pondent 20 days TO reply:
cause to be thereupon submitted.
3. 4S-McNoble vs. JustlnianO- Ordered ap-
pellant have 30 days ID file brief, respondent 20
days TO reply, appellant 10 days to reply there
to; cause then TO be submitted
Jtf-O-hlioS ct al. VS.. HlgDy-COntlnued.
9,9o7-Porteous vs.. Reed ct al.-Ordered ap-
pellant have 20 days to file brief, respondent 20
days 10 reply appellant Is days to reply thereto;
cause to he thereon submitted.
tinued
n,l65-McLaughlin VS.. Del. Re. ct al-sub
mittcd, according to stipulstions on file.
n,15l-Manuel vs. Jupiter Deep Blue G. Fl
NJ. Co.-NO appearance and no points or au-
thorities on file. The Judgment and order is
affirmed
9567-Dreyfuss vs.. Tcmpkins-N appearance,
and no points and authorities on file. The judg-
ment is affirmed.
tinued.
u,2A-Tucks VS.. Bagley-Ordcred submitted
on authorities and points on file
1i,42j-Smith vs.. Idaho @. NJ Co-Ordered
submitted on points on fife
lI5l5-Kivern vs. Providence G. d S. NJ Co.
ordered appellant have 50 days to file brief
respondent 30 days to reply, appellant 10 davs
10 repy thereto; cause TO be thereon submitted
II 2O-Arnott ct al. VS.. Waterhouse-Ordered
appellant have 20 days to file brief, respondent
- days to reply; cause to be thereon submitted
li,o52-Pal1ner * Uncas Mining Company VS.
uncas Mining Company-same order as above
ll,4yS-Lawrence ct al. VS.. Green ct al-Or-
dered submitted on briefs on file.
n,515-Frankel VS.. Deidesheimer ct al-Or-
deTed appellant have % days to file brief re-
spondent 80 days to reply cause to be thereon
u,l5f,-Cook VS.. Rachford- Ordered submitted
on briefs on file.
llflOo-iidySS vs.. EWlDS-SalIie order as above,
H,26O-Terpey VS.. Doten ct al.-Ordered re-
spondent be allowed 20 days to file brief cause
to be thereon submitted
IL &l-Lee Il Sons VS.. Orr ct al.-Ordered sub
mitted on briefs on file
II, 327-Aylesworth ct al. VS.. Dean.-Same or
der.
g,717-Alfred ct al VS.. C. P. R. r. Co.-Ordered
continued for the term.
u,157-Grand Lodge, |. o. o. F. vs. Farnham
Ordered referred 10 the Supreme Court Com
missioners.
1l,2il-Davisson VS.. Board Supervisors Solano
c .unty-Ordered appellant have % days to file
brief, respondent five days to reply cause to be
thereon submitted.
n.37S-Roney VS.. County of Solsno - Con-
tinued
1l,056-Hicken VS.. French-Ordered submitted
on briefs on file.
1906 Mccormick VS.. Rossi-Ordered referred
10 the Supreme Court Commissioners
ll,l67-Wheeler VS.. West ct al.-Same order
II ,25S-C. 2. R. R. Co. VS.. Kelly-On motion of
Hart, the case of c. p. r. K. Co. vs. Kelly, No
II, 25S, and Kelly VS.. c. 7. K. R. Co, were com
bined, as per stipuiations on file and case con
tinued
n,275,Connty of Placer vs.. Campbell-or-
dered submitted on briefs on file
Adjourned for the session.
IN BANK.