Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-25
SUPREME COURT.
A NUMBER OF DECISIONS RECEIVED
YESTERDAY.
Noneof Them of Any Great Importance.
The Cases Settled and the Points In
volved.

M. J. Ashmore, deputy clerk of the
supreme court, yesterday received sev-
eral decisions, which were none of them
of any special public interest.
In the case of A. Frederick e. al, re-
spondents, VS.. Dickey, appellant, the
judgment and order denying a motion
for a new trial was affirmed. 1t was an
action brought to enjoin defendant from
destroying or interfering with certain
water ditch, portion of which runs
through the defendants land. Judg-
ment went for the plaintiffs, and the
defendants appealed. The court found
that plaintiffs and their grantors for ten
| years before the commencement OF the
action were the owners OF mill that
the water ditch and right of way for it
were appurtenant to the mill and used
solely for the purpose of operating it,
and that plaintiffs had been in open and
adverse possession Of the ditch for ten
years. The real question at issue, says
the court, is swhether or not plaintiffs and
their grantors held the ditch, water and
right OF way over the defendant land,
dQNCISCly W OH0 Q6lCnQdnb anu Ills
grantors. The court finds that such was
the case, and consequently affirms the
decision of the lower court.
The Judgment of the lower court is
affirmed in the case of Thompson, res
pondents, VS.. Laughlin, appellant. 1t
was an action in the superior court of
Los Angeles for the recovery of the pos
session of certain lot of lumber, or its
value, $1,000. and $3.50 damages and costs.
November s, 1889, the plaintiff obtained
judgment, and the defendant brought
| action to enjoin the enforcement of the
! judgment. The court below rendered
Judgment enjcining the collection of the
$1,000, and requiring the judgment to be
satisfied to that extent. From this the
defendant appealed. The court below
found that during the pending of the
action the defendant returned all the
lumber to the plaintiff which had been
sued for. The findings show that after
the rendition of the judgment, and with
in the time allowed for in which to move
for new trial, the attorney for the de-
fendant in that action agreed that upon
payment OF $3.50 and costs the judgment
should be satisfied, but afterwards re-
fused to accept the sum agreed upon.
The court holds that the Judgment ap-
RCdtC0 lAOlA 10 LIZ nv LlAu dhll LIS lUs
In the case of Rochat VS.. Gee, defend
ant and appellant, Sommer, receiver
and respondent, the appeal was dis
missed. 1t was an appeal from an
order of court approving an account by
receiver.
| In.the case OF Baines, respondent, vs..
Babcock appellant, the judgment and
order of the lower court are affirmed. 1t
was an action to subject the amountdue
from defendants for unpaid subscrip-
tions for stock in the San Diego street
car company to the payment of a
| judgment in favor of plaintiff and
against the corporation. The plaintiff
recovered judgment, and from this and
an order denying their motion for new
trial the defendant appealed.
In the case of Baipes, respondent, VS..
Story ct al, appellant, the court states
that the questions presented are sub
stantially the same as those involved in
the. preceding case. Judgment and
order affirmed.
In the case of A. w. Potter, respond
ent, vs.. Parker Dear, appellant, the
court says the points made by the ap-
pellant have been determined adversely
to his contention in the case OF Baines
vs.. Babcock, and upon the authority OF
that case, and the cases cited in the
opinion rendered, the judgment is af-
| firmed.
A case which has been pending for
some time, the Schallert- Ganahl Lum-
ber company ct als., appellants, vs.
Juana A. Neal, ct al, respondents, has
been decided, the finding of the court
being as follows; The judgment and
order denying new trial as to both
plaintiffs is reversed, and as to plaintiff,
the Schallert- Ganahl Lumber company,
it is ordered that the trial court enter
judgment for the amount prayed for in
| its complaint, IAN attorneys fee OF 500, as
heretofore allowed, and costs of suit; as
to the plaintiff, the Los Angeles Planning
Mill company, the cause is remanded
for new trial. 1t was an action to en-
| force two mechanics liens.