Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-03
APPEALED CASES.
BATCH OF DECISIONS FILED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
A Butte County Riparianist Loses His
Case-Rights of Sheriffs in Ger
tain Instances-Etc.

The following Supreme Court decisions
were filed in the Office of Clerk Will
Jams, for the Sacramento District
Coouradt, appellant, VS.. Hilton appeal
from Butte county. The matter in dispute
is the diversion of the water of Clear creek
from its natural channel by the respondent,
Hill. The appellant, Coouradt, to sustain
his suit, relies upon his riparian right to
the full natural flow of the stream against
one whose land does not border on it, and
who, as he contends, has made no valid
appropriation of the water which he has
diverted. The defendant relies mainly ON
a license from the Government, while it
was the property of the Government The
judgment and order of the lower Court are
affirmed.
sHERIFFs RIGHTS.
Rhoda A. Van Cleare VS.. John Bucher;(as
Sheriff This is an action for damages
against Sheriff tor the alleged failure to
return writ of execution. A demurrer
was filed to the amended complaint, stating
as grounds therefor that said amended COM
plant does not state facts sufficient to con-
stitute cause of action against the defend
ant, as Sheriff of Modoc county. The de-
murrer was sustained and the plaintiff de-
Ginning to amend, judgment was duly given
in favor of the defendant, from which this
appeal is prosecuted. The Supreme Court
holds that from an inspection of the whole
| complaint, 1t was not doubtful in what
capacity the defendant was sued. 1t is
clear that the action was brought against
him as the Sheriff of Modoc county, and the
judgment is therefore reversed and the
| Court below directed to override the de-
mi pattarcno ar,d
from this opinion.
TAN DEED ovERRULED.
Oullahan, appellant, vs. Sweeney
Stanislaus county case-which turns upon
the validity of a tax deed under which the
plaintiff claims. The judgment was af-
firmed.
AN INSUFFICIENT COMPLAINT
PETERSON ct al, respondents, VS.. Hewitt ct
al.-The plaintiffs bring this action to have
certain judgments and the executions is
sued thereon and the levies made under
them vacated and set aside, that an adm
dlcatlon IN Insolvency may be vacated and
the proceedings dismissed, and for an in
junction restraining certain defendants,
ETC., from selling certain property described
IN the complaint. The Supreme Court
holds that the complaint does not state
facts sufficient TO constitute a cause of
action, and therefore the judgment and Or
der are reversed and the cause remanded.
with directions to the Court below to sus-
tain the demurrer to the complaint and for
other proceedings according to law.
SUIT ON PRoMIssoRY NOTES.
Turner administrator appellant, VS..
Turner ct al-ThIs was a suit to foreclose
vendors lien to secure the amount of six
promissory notes. One of the defenses
was that the notes had been paid, and the
trial Court found this to be the fact. The
counsel for the appellant contend that this
finding IS not supported by the evidence.
The Supreme Court holds that the evidence
must be held to be sufficient to support il.
and accordingly the judgment and order
denying new trial is affirmed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Charles Moran ct al. appellants, VS..
Catherine Farley.-The Supreme Court
holds that the facts in this case are the
same as in Moran VS.. Ross given below.
and, for the reasons stated in the opinion
in that case, the judgment appealed from
Is reversed, with instructions to the Court
below to modify the same in accordance
with said opinion.
JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES REVERSED.
q. K. Farnum, respondent, VS.. Philip
Hefner-sn action to recover damages for
the conversion of lot of wheat in Butte
county. The judgment was for the plaintiff.
from which and an order DENYING his
motion for a new trial the defendant an
peals. The dispute was over the terms Of
a lease. The Judgment and order appealed
from is reversed.
LASsEN COUNTY CASE
Knock, appellant, VS.. BunneIl, a Lassen
county case; being an action to forcIose a
mortgage executed by one H. C. Stockton.
since deceased. The judgment and order
denying new trial are affirmed
CONDENSATION OF LANDS.
Charles Moran ct al, appellants, VS.. A.
Il. hosS, Dassen county case, in which
proceedings were brought by the appellants,
as partners, to condemn lands for the right
of way of a railroad. There was a iudg-
ment for the appellants condemning the
land as prayed for, but the Court found
that the lands of the respondent not taken
by the railroad would be benefited by
the location and construction of the
road in the sum of $3.50, and refused
to allow the appellants any deduction
on account OF said benefits from the amount
of damages found as to the part of respond
ents land not taken. The sole question is
whether in an action by private individ-
ual to condemn lands, the amount of bene-
fits accruing to the land of the defendant.
not taken, can be deducted from the dam
ages resulting from the taking of the right
of way. The Supreme Court holds that
the Court below should have allowed the
deduction of the benefits found, as against
the damages resulting to the lands of the
defendant not taken. Judgment is accord
lngly reversed, with instructions to the
Court below TO modify the same in accord
ance with this opinion.
Justice Beatty, in concurring with the
opinion, says that he concurred in the
opinion of the Court in the case of Moran
VS. Ross (No. 1858, wherein it was held
that under our statutes natural persons
may condemn lands for railroad purposes,
but subsequently, on consideration of the
petition Tor a rehesring, he became so
doubtful of the soundneSs of that conclu-
sion as to think the question at least de-
serving OF reargument and further con-
siderstion. The result 10 which the doc.
trine of that case leads-es illustrated in
this case-that there is one rule of dam
ages for private individuals, and another
for corporations, when they seek 10 con-
denim lands for the same purpose, deepens
his (Beatty'sl conviction that the correct
ness of the former decision of the Supreme
Court is open to serious question He
adds: IF, however, we were right in
that decision, and whether right or wrong)
so long as we adhered to it. the conclusion
| reached in the foregoing opinion written
by Mr.. Justice Works, seems to be in.
evitable."