Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-11-23
SUPREME COURT.
IN RANr


SACRAMENTO. November %, 1885.
Court met pursuant 10 adjournment. Present,
searls, q. j.. presiding; Thornton, j.; Sharp
stein. J Mcfarland, j.: Patterson, j.; Works.
l2,434-Welsh VS.. Goned-Pursuant 10 stipula-
ton, ordered thst the order of November Il,
1855. made herein, be modified so as 10 allow
respondent until December 10, 1855, 10 file brief
he .ein.
la,50-McCormiek VS.. North British Insur-
ance Company-Argued by Roche for respond
ent; ordered appellant be allowed twenty DAYS
to file brief; cause 10 be rnereupon submitted
l2.2o5-Estate OF Fower-On suggestion of
dimlnution OF record, ordered attorney for ap-
pellant be permitted to file certain copies of
order allowing filing of opposition of creditors
to homestead proceedings cause argued by
Grant for appellant, Aram for respondent and
submitted.
12,Sl1-Wright VS. Roseberry ct al-Pursuant
to stipulation, ordered appellant be allowed
twenty days to file brief, respondent twenty DAYS
TO reply. appellant ten DAYS TO reply thereto;
cause to be thereupon submitted.
12,Si3-Coward VS.. Clanton-On motion or
dered respondent be allowed twenty days to file
brief, appellant twenty days to reply; cause to
be thereupon submitted.
12S3i-County of Yolo VS.. Barney-Pursusnt
to stipulation, ordered respondent be allowed
thirty days TO file brief, appellant twenty days
to reply; cause to be thereupon submitted.
l2i3l-Clanton VS.. Ruffner ct al.-On motion
OF Attorney-General johnson, ordered respond
ent be allowed twenty days 10 file brief, appel
liant ten days 10 reply; cause to be thereupon
l2,S69-van Cleave vs. Butcher (sheriff) 12,4n
-Peregory VS.. Sellick; l2,i42-Peregory vs. Nc
kissick; 12.469- Knock VS.. BunneI; l257l-I
Sharp VS.. Hoffman: u 657-Moran ct al VS. Fur
ley ct al: l2.65S-Moran ct al. VS.. Ross ct al;
l2,696-Moran ct al. VS.. Furley; IL 697-Moran ct
al. VS.. ROsS-On motion of Spencer, ordered ap-
pellant be allowed forty days to file brief, re-
spondent forty days to reply, appellant twenty
TO reply thereto: cause to be thereupon sub
mitted.
12,i6l-Wade VS.. Gloster-On motion of John.
SON ordered respondent be allowed thirty days
TO hle brief, appellant twenty days to reply;
cause to be thereupon submitted.
l2.S3l-Reese vs. Thomburn; - S32-Derrevan
gued by Rogers for appellant, jerks for respond
ent; ordered respondent be allowed twenty days
TO file brief, appellant twenty days to reply;
cause to be thereupon submitted.
2,55O-LoyeiaEd vs. Gardner ct al-On mo-
ton OF spencer ordered respondent be allowed
forty days to file brief appellant twenty days to
reply: cause to be thereupon submitted
l2,656-Moran ct al. VS.. Ferris-Dn motion of
Spencer, ordered that the appeal herein be and
the same is hereby dismissed.
l2ro40-Freeman VS.. Barney ct al; u, S93-Free-
man vs. Barney ct al.-On motion of Spencer,
ordered cause be continued for the term
II 572-Cardwell VS.. County of Sacramento: |
l26l5-Fenton VS.. Alsip ct al.-On motion of |
Holl ordered respondent be allowed thirty DAYS |
10 hle brief, appellant twenty days to reply; |
cause 10 be thereupOn submitted.
u 445- Grandona VS.. Lovdal = Pursuant to |
stipulation, ordered respondent be allowed until !
January /, 1889, within which to file brief APP |
submitted.
Adjourned until 10 A NJ. tomorrow.