Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-23
IT MUST STAND.
The Supreme Court Affirms the Judgment
in a San JOAQUIN County Case

The Supreme Court Affirms the Judgment
in a San Joaquin County Case.
F. NJ. West, respondent, VS.. B. C. Craw-
ford and D. S. Rosenbaum. The action is
on a contract agreed between members of
a corporation, under the name of the "San
Joaquin Land and Water Company" or
ganized for the purpose of procuring water
rights on one or more of the rivers or
streams running through the counties of
Calaveras, Tuolumne, Stanislaus and San
JOAQUIN, constructing dams, reservoirs.
canals, ETC., and supplying farmers, miners,
cities, towns, etc, with the said water for
mining, farming, drinking, irrigation, etc.
The capital stock was l,000, 900, divided
into 10000 shares, and in the contract it
was agreed between the stockholders that
they pay twenty per cent. of the par value
of the said shares subscribed in five DAYS
after the articles incorporation shall have
been filed in the Office of the County Clerk
of San Joaquin county, and will pay the
same to +. M. West, at the Stockton Saw
ings and Loan Society Bank. F. NJ. West
was constituted as agent to collect the
amount when ii became due.
The complaint alleges the execution of
the contract by various persons, including
the appellant, and the facts showing that
the company named in the agreement was
incorporated and organized in all things as
agreed upon therein that at meeting of
the Board of Directors of the corporation
it was ordered by the Board that twenty
per cent. of the subscribed stock be called
in, in accordance with the agreement
signed by the stockholders, and that F. NJ.
West be instructed to notify the parties and
collect the same; that the plaintiff de-
manded OF the defendant twenty per cent.
of the amount subscribed by him, amount
ing TO $1,000, which he refused and ne
elected TO pay.
There was a general demurrer to the
complaint, which was overruled, and the
defendant answered admitting that he
signed the instrument sued on, but deny
ing that he " thereby, or at all, entered into
an agreement with any persons whose
names were attached to said agreement, or
with sny persons whomsover, and alleges
that the signing and agreement by him
was wholly without any consideration
or benefit 10 this defendant from the plain
tiff or any persons whomsoever," and de-
nying all of the other material allegations
of the complaint
The Supreme Court says: MANY grave
errors in regard to rulings on evidence, to
the form and substance of the findings and
10 the oVerrullng OF appellants motion for
nonsuit, appear IN the transcript The
points of error are so numerous that it
would unduly extend this brief to repeat
them in detail. They are believed to be
sound, and are confidently relied upon by
appellant, and this honorable Court is re-
specially referred to the grounds of appel
lanrs motion for nonsuit, elsborately
stated at pages ninety-five to one hundred
of the transcript, and to one hundred and
siXty-two thereof
We do not feel it our duty, after the full
investigation we have given to the points
raised and discussed in the case, to search
the records for errors, however grave they
may appear to counsel, where not specifi-
cally pointed out to US.
Judgment aud order affirmed.
The cases of F. NJ. West, respondent, VS..
]. r. W. Hitchcock; and F. NJ. West, ap-
pellant, vs. Charles Bedding, which were in
all material respects the same as the above
opinion, were also similarly decided.