Los Angeles herald., 1891-06-30
The Electric and Cable Roads
Controversy.
Two Interesting Decisions Yes
terday in Civil Cases.
Proceedings of Note Which Occurred
in the Various Tribunals.
Report of the United states Grand Jury
The b ell Claim to the Court House
Property = Court Notes
and New Cases.

The hearing of the petition presented
by the Los Angeles Consolidated Elec-
trio company, asking that the superior
court grant that company permission to
run over and use portion of the tracks
of the Pacific railroad company, came
up before Judge Wade yesterday. The
Belt company was represented by At
torneys Pope and Chapman, and the
cable company by Attorneys Gardner
and Hubbell. That portion of Spring
street between Second and Fifth, which
is now covered with horse car tracks
leased by the cable company, is included
in the petition of the electric road,
which has already constructed its line
over the street. AS the city council
has granted the latter company fran
chises over this and other roads already
occupied by the cable company, the
only question which remains to be de-
cided is as to the amount of compensa-
ton which the electric company must
pay the cable line for the use of its
tracks and other property.
The attorneys for the Pacific railroad
are making strong fight against the
granting of the petition. 1t was stated
in court yesterday that the cable road
for some time past has had under con-
sideration a proposition to change its
lines into electric lines, which are
cheaper to operate, and this was offered
as an argument against the petition, as
it would be impossible for the two roads
to run their cars by electricity over the
same tracks at the same time. The
further hearing of the matter was finally
set for July 10Th, and the cable COM
pany was given ten days to prepare an
answer.
EFFECT OF ENDORSEMENT.
Judge Wade yesterday delivered an
opinion in the case of Weeks vs.. Bro
camp ct al, ordering judgment for
plaintiff The following is an abstract
of the decision:
The demurrer on the ground of mis-
joinder of parties plaintiff and defend
ant, is overruled. The reasons for
making them all parties are sufficiently
explained in the statement that the
action is for the foreclosure of mort
gage and recovery of debt, and that
the interests of the parties are adverse
in the order in which they are arrayed.
But it is claimed that judgment for
deficiency cannot be maintained against
defendant Desmond, either on his con-
tract of guaranty or his Endorsement.
AS to the former, because it was without
consideration, and as to the latter that
he did not receive notice of the dishonor
of the note. Indorsers of negotiable
paper are entitled to notice of dishonor
unless such notice is waived. In this
ba oil ,o hn
tract of guaranty printed on the back
signed by Desmond. 1t matters not
that this contract was without consider
alton so far as the waiver of demand and
notice is concerned. The waiver needs
no consideration to support it and the
waiver refers to the indorser's contract,
and not to that of the guarantor, as the
guarantor is not entitled to demand and
notice of dishonor as condition pre-
cedent to his liability.
But this is not negotiable promissory
note and for the reason that
it is not negotiable, it is not promis
sorry note at ALL So that the liability of
the indorser, and his right to notice of
dishonor, must be determined under the
law applicable to the assignment of
chooses in action, and the Endorsement
of written evidences of debt other than
promissory notes, If there is any such
thing as Endorsement OF such writings
known to the law.
There is no doubt, however, that it is
can instrument for the payment OF
money" and if according to
the terms of that provision of the code,
Mr.. Desmond, when he transferred the
paper, entered into promise respecting
the instrument, that it would be paid,
4 l. ton &c
he became bound to the trans
collectibility, merely, but of it's
payment at maturity. There is Il
no evidence of any such express promise
and if none can be implied from the act
OF writing his name on the instrument at
the date of transfer, then he cannot be
held liable at all as the subsequent guar
anty was clearly without consideration
and made long after he had parted with
the possession OF the instrument.
AS to the effect of such an Endorsement
there is a great diversity of opinion, but
the best and cearest exposition of the
liability of an indorser of non-negotia
BILE instrument, is to the effect that he
becomes liable as guarantor. Il
For the foregoing reasons judgment is
ordered for the plaintiff.
ORDER SET ASIDE.
Judge Wade yesterday granted the
motion to set aside an order striking out
the bill of costs filed in the case of
Howell VS.. Walton. The following
opinion was delivered with respect
thereto:
The question here is as to whether the
cost bill was filed in the time prescribed
by 1888, G. @. P. This section requires
the bill to be filed and served five days
after notice of the decision. The SUI
preme court have decided that the "de-
cision" referred to in the findings filed
in the case and that the time begins to
run from the filing and not from the
signing of the findings. 1t is also de-
cided that where it appears that the
prevailing party had knowledge Of the
dicision, notice is not requisite. Now in
this case no findings were ever fled
All that has been filed is Judgment
signed by the court for the costs. 1t
sufficiently appears that the cost bill
was filed in the case not later than the
prescribed five days after the filing of
this judgment. Under the circumstances
it seems to have been filed in time. The
motion is therefore granted. and the
order heretofore made striking out is set
a cida