The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1891-02-01
APPEALS DISPOSED OF.
The Supreme Court Disposes of a
Batch of Cases.
The Police Widow and Orphan Fund
A Transaction In Beans and
Barley.

The Supreme Court rendered several
decisions yesterday.
The judgment of Superior Judge Gar
Der, of San Francisco, is affirmed in the
case of Alfred Clarke VS.. Treasurer
Refs. This action was brought for the
purpose of forcing Refs, by mandamus,
to pay Clarke, who was the assignee of a
claim Of dismissed police officer, one
Pugh, the amount of $3.50. Treasurer
Reis was the custodian of the police wild
ows' and orphans fund, into which
each police officer of San Francisco paws
81 of salary each month. Pugh, or his
assignee, claimed that the officer had an
interest in this fund, and upon his dis
charge he was entitled to have it returned
to him or his representative The petit
ton was demurred to and the demurrer
sustained-from which judgment this
appeal was taken.
BARLEY AND BEANS.
Judgment is also affirmed in the case of
Campodonico VS.. The Oregon Improve
ment Company. This was an
action to recover damages for the
conversion by the defendant of certain
personal property, consisting of beans
and barley, grown upon land farmed by
one Dodge in San Luis Obispo county in
1886. Judgment was rendered in favor of
the plaintiff by the lower court. Dodge
had mortgaged the beans and barley to
Campodonico to secure the payment of a
note for $500. The property was de-.
l1vered to the Improvement Company for
storage, and Dodge notified the company
that 1t belonged to Campodonico, but the
company gave the teamster tags showing
that the products were received from
1nS Il
know that the goods had been stored in
Dodge's name until two years later.
Dodge went into insolvency and the
beans and barley We're sold as part of his
estate. Campodonico then sued the COM
pany tor damages.
STREET CONTRACTS.
Another appeal is denied in the case of
Frick and others, who are Los Angeles
contractors, against one Morford. The
plaintiffs applied to the Superior Court
for writ OF mandate, to compel the Su-
perintendent of Streets to make an as
SeSSment for certain street work done by
the contractors. They aver that they
agreed to do the work according to plans
and specifications, but those plans and
specifications were faulty, inasmuch as
extra work was required in order to COM
plete the work. They brought an action
to recover what was due for this work
against one Williams, who had refused to
pay his assessment because of !'eXcess of
work" The defendant demurred, and
the demurrer was sustained on the
ground that the assessment was void
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
In the case of c. III. Reed ct al. ire
spondent VS.. Thomas Norton ct al, the
Judgment of the Superior Court of San
Luis Obispo County is reversed. and the
cause remanded for a new trial. Eight
actions were brought against the de-
PENDANTS, the owner of build
ing, Thomas Norton, and his
contractor, Thomas Helm. to enforce
the liens of certain mechanics and ma
terlal men. The contractor, Helm, made
defaults. Norton answered, DENYING
all the allegations in the complaint except
as to his ownership of the property on
which the liens We're sought to be en-
forced. Judgment passed for the plain
tiffs and Norton appealed. In reversing
the ruling of the lower court the SUI
preme Court says Norton is responsible
but for % per cent. of the contract price
So, 5G0-and no more.
Judgment is affirmed in the case of
f'oss ct al, appellants, VS.. Joseph Hin
kell, appealed from Los Angeles county.
The action is in ejectment. The plant
ifs claim title under United States
patent to the Southern Pacific Company,
dated April 4, 1879, and deed from said
company to plaintiffs dated June 20,
1887. The defendant claims as a pre-
emptor, contending that at the date
of the definite location of the
railroad, which was on or about
April 3, 1871, the land in contest
was within the exterior limits of the San
Jose Rancho, valid Mexican grant,
and was therefore reserved from the
grant to the railroad company. judy
ment went for the defendant and the
plaintiffs took an appeal. The Supreme
Court agrees with the lower court in the
ruling.