Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-26
LEGAL LORE.
TEN LATE DECISIONS FILED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
The Sacramento District Clerk Gets a
Beneft-Cases Covering Various
Points of Law.

mento District
Eaton (respondent) VS.. Richerie. This
is a Tuolumne county case and an action
to recover for services rendered. The trial
Court gave judgment for plaintiff, and the
defendant appeals. Defendant agreed to
pay plaintiff at the rate of So per day, such
payment to be made in provisions and sup
plies, and Tor any balance that might be
due plaintiff, plaintiff was to wait until the
mining property was sold or until a sum
sufficient 10 pay plaintiff said balance was
realized from said mine.
Plaintiff rendered services during long
period and only portion of the price was paid,
leaving balance Of $l,490 05. After the
made of the mine for SIS 900, which con-
tract was signed by defendant, and the sum
Of S. 900 was paid on account.
The Supreme Court holds that the time
of payment specified in the contract had
arrived when action was brought, and that
the word ''sold" does not necessarily mean
that conveyance must be made or that
title must pass. The judgment and order
denying a new trial are affirmed.
ANoTHER TUoLUMNE CASE.
Carter ct al. (appellants) VS.. Bacigalupi,
a Tuolumne county case, and an action TO
determine the right to mining claim.
The defendant had judgment, and the
plaintiffs appeal. The main points made
for the plaintiffs relate TO the sufficiency of
the location of the defendants grantor, and
the suficiency of the transfer to the defend
ant. Judgment and order are affirmed.
THE VERDICT WAS CORRECT.
Jue Fook Sam VS.. Lord is a Nevada
county case, in which judgment was en-
tered in the Court below in favor of plaintiff
on February 20, 1889, for the sum of STA "a
and costs, and defendant appealed there
from 10 this Court on April s, 1889. The
complaint states facts sufficient to consti-
tute cause of action, the verdict of the
jury covers all the issues, and the judgment
follows the verdict. There is, therefore, no
merit in the appeal from the judgment.
Order of the lower Court affirmed.
PRoMIssoRy NOTE CASE.
Graham (respondenD VS.. Larimer. This
is also Nevada county case, and is a suit
on promissory note made by defendant,
payable on demand to James Ward or
order. The note was twice assigned before
June 4. 1888; first by Ward to George Lord,
and second by Lord to plaintiff, who de-
manded payment on June 4, 1888.
Among other defenses the defendant
pleaded; That said promissory note was
signed on void illegal and invalid con-
sideration, in support of which she shows
that on June 2, 1888, said James Ward was
about 10 prosecute one Robert Larimer,
brother of defendant, on charge of felony;
that said Ward then and there promised
and agreed with defendant that if she
would sign said note he would refrain from
such prosecution and keep silent as to the
alleged crime; that in consideration of his
so doing, at his request the said defendant
signed the said promissory note.
The answer further alleges that each of
assignees of the note had notice of the
character and illegally of the considera-
ton at the time of the assignment of the
note to bin. Judgment was rendered for
the plaintiff for the full amount of the
principal and interest of the note and for
costs, from which. and from an order deny
ing her motion for a new trial, defendant
appealed.
The Supreme Court reviews the case at
length, and in conclusion comes to the
opinion that for an error in sustaining the
objection to the discrimination of Lord,
the judgment and order should be reversed
and new trial granted.
AN ADVERSE CLAIMANTS SUCCESS.
Kits (appellant) vs. Austin, another Ne
vada county case, and an action to quiet
title. The defendant set up her adverse
claim, and Judgment passed in her favor,
from which, and an order denying new
trial; plaintiff appeals. The judgment
and order are affirmed.
SUIT AGAINST AN INsoLvEET.
In re Bowman, insolvent. This is Ne
yada county case, and is an appeal by GER
tain creditors of the insolvent debtor Bow
man, from judgment granting him dis
charge in insolvency, and from an order
denying their motion for new trial of the
issues raised by the opposition to his petit
ton for discharge. Judgment and order
affirmed.
CoLUsA LAND CASE.
Cleghorn (appellant) VS.. D. Zumwalt, a
Colusa county case, and an action to re-
form deed. Judgment for defendant and
plaintiff appeals. The case comes up on the
judgment-roll 1t appears from the find
ings that in October, 1885, Mary Cleghorn,
then a minor, was the owner of an undi-
vided one-tenth interest in quarter-section
of land. which she had inherited from her
father; that upon the death of her father a
one half interest in said land passed to her
mother, VINO also died in October, 1885 /;
that in the course OF the settlement of the
estate of the mother, the said one.half in
terest so held by the mother was, by an
order of the Probate Court, duly given and
made. set apart to and declared to be the
property of said Mary, but she was then
advised by her counsel that this order only
gave her the use of the property during her
minority, and that upon her becoming of
age her brothers and sisters would take
each one-fifth interest therein, the same
as they had done in the fathers estate,
leaving one-fifth to her, thus vesting in her
at her majority, two undivided tenths. or
Al Il Il, l.
in the tract.
The Supreme Court reverses the judg-
ment and orders the case remanded, with
instructions to the Court below to enter
judgment on the findings in favor of plain
tiff, as prayed in the complaint.
ALL IN NUTSHELL.
De Noon respondent VS.. Morrison ct ais.
An action to recover the possession of
the Gordon placer mine in Nevada county.
There was a trial by Jury, a verdict and
Judgment for plaintiff, motion for new
trial made and denied, and defendant ap-
peals from both judgment and order. The
Supreme Court affirms the judgment and
order.
MINING SUIT DECIDED.
Clark (respondent) VS.. Brown ct al. An
action commenced in the Superior Court of
the county of Stanislaus, in which two of
the defendants resided. 1t was suit over
a mine. The order is affirmed.
SUIT AGAINST SHERIFF.
Lukeforth (respondent) VS.. Lord. This
Is an action against the Sheriff of Nevada
county, for the recovery of the sum of "a 900
damages, for the unlawful conversion of a
stock of merchandise. The Sheriff justifes
under an order of attachment, and SUBJ
seouent judgment in the Superior Court of
San Francisco, in suit wherein George D..
Cooper was plaintiff and L. NJ. Lukeforth
was defendant. No exception is taken to
the regularity or legality of the proceed
ipes or writ in that case.
The goods were levied upon as the prop
erty of l. NJ. Lukeforth, the Judgment
debtor, but found in and taken from the
possession of Z. G. Lukeforth, the plaintiff
in this action.
The action was tried before jury, YER
dict and Judgment in favor OF plaintiff in
The sum of $1,000, motion for new trial
made and denied, and defendant appeals.
Judgment and order are affirmed.
In concurring with the opinion Justice
Works saws: II concur in the judgment,
lint do not agree to what is said In the
opinion of Mr.. Justice Fox as to the man
ner of entering en- exception to the giving
of instructions. I think the record suff1-
GENTLY shows that the exceptions were
properly taken and in time: It was enough