Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-06-02
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
A Batch of Opinions Filed In Several
Important Cases.

The following Supreme Court opinions
were filed in the Office of J. S. Williams,
Clerk of the Sacramento District yester-
day:
Peter G. Sharp (appellant) vs. John NJ
Blaukenship. This is an action of eject
ment to recover a strip of land lying along
the boundary line between two cotermi-
nous owners. The verdict and Judgment
were for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals
from the judgment and from an order
denying new trial. The judgment and
order are reversed and new trial granted.
TO QUIET TITLE TO LAND.
County of Yolo (respondent) VS.. Mar
garet Barney. This action was brought by
plaintiff to quiet its title to piece of Land.
claimed adversely by defendant An
answer and cross complaint were filed by
the latter, in which, after denying the
right and title of the plaintiff, she claims
by continuous adverse possession for more
than five years before the commencement
of the action, and asks that the plaintiff be
made to show its interest in the land, and
that her title thereto be quieted. Judg-
ment was given quieting the plaintiffs title
to the land. as against the defendant, and
for costs. From that, and an order refus-
ing new trial, the appeal is taken. The
judgment and order of the lower Court are
affirmed
THE CARPENTER WILL.
Estate of Carpenter, deceased, San
Joaquin county case. This is contest
over the will of Charles w. Carpenter, de-
ceased. Special issues were submitted to q
jury, who found that the will was not pro-
cured to be made through fraud exercised
by anyone, and was not procured to be
made in the form in which il was made,
through undue influence exercised by any
one, and was executed and attested accord
ing to law, but the jury also found that the
deceased, at the time of the execution of
the will, was "of unsound mind" was Gin
competent TO make will" and did not
have sufficient mental capacity to COM
prehend fully" etc. Thereupon the Court
entered an order reyoking the will (which
bad previously be admitted to probate }
The proponents, executor of the will and
devisees and legatees appeal from said
order, and also from an order denying a
new trial. The Supreme Court reverses
the orders appealed from and grants a new
trial, on the grounds that in their opinion
there was not enough evidence to show
that the deceased was of 'unsound mind
DIVERSION OF WATER.
J. P. Sharp (appellant) vs. S. Hoffman
and L. Hicks, action for damages for
wrongful diversion of water; verdict and
judgment for plaintiff. Defendants moved
for and obtained an order granting q new
trial, from which plaintiff appeals. The
new trial was granted upon two grounds:
the insufficiency of the evidence to justify
the verdict, and of errors OF law that oc.
Cured at the trial. and which were duly
excepted TO by the defendants. The order
is affirmed.
A SACRAMENTO CASE REVERSED.
John F. Fenton (appellant) vs. E. X. Al
sip ct al. This is an action TO recover
money paid as part of the purchase
money for real estate for which the plain
tiff claims he got no title. There was q
nonsuit granted by the Court below, on
the ground that the plaintiff had received
a deed for the property, and the title hav.
ing rested in him, he must tender recon.
veyance o. the property before he could re-
| cover back the money paid by him. But
the evidence shows that the property
decided TO the plaintiff was not the property
purchased by him, but of lots in a differ.
ent block, and that Immediately upon dis.
covering the fact he declined to go further
/ with the trade and did not take the deed
although 1t had actually been placed in his
| hands. The judgment is reversed.
L. w. Dreyfus ct al. VS. Sarah Giles-Ar
| action to foreclose a mortgage. Order anC
judgment appealed from affirmed, with ter
per cent. damages.
POSSESSION OF CHURCH PROPERTY.
Henry Baker ct al respondents VS. Johr
Quicker ct al. This is an action TO recover
| for the use of the members of the " Frs
| Reformed Church of the City of Stockton
lot of land with the dwelling house
thereon, which is situated in Stockton, anC
was purchased and formerly used as par
sonage for the church. A demurrer to thu
complaint was overruled and thereupor
the defendants answered. The finding,
and judgment were in favor of plaintiff!
and the appeal was taken by defendant
| from the judgment and an order denyine
them new trial. The judgment and orde
are affirmed.