The record-union., 1891-03-20
TIE Law.
Opinions of the Supreme Court il
Important Cases.
Blame Attached to a Careless Con
ductor for the killing of a Brake
man in a Collision.

Quite a large batch of opinions were
filed yesterday in the Supreme Court
Clerks Office, the matters being appeals
They are as follows:
Kate Congrave ct al. (plaintiffs and ap-
pellants) VS.. Southern Pacific Railroad
Company. This action was brought by
the widow and infant son of James w.
Congrave, deceased, to recover damages
for the death of the latter, who was killed
by an accident on railroad train near
Summit in March, 1888. Congrave was a
brakeman and on the train when it left
Truckee, destined for Sacramento. The
train had orders to leave TamaraclS Sta
ton, a few miles west of Summit, at fifty
tive minutes past II O'Clock, noon, and
not earlier, and it was the duty of the
conductor not to allow the train to leave
the station before that time. He disre-
garded orders, however, and left nine
minutes before the time was up The re-
suit was that the train collided with an
other coming up the mountain, and Con-
grave was killed.
In the lower court demurrer was
made to the complaint on the general
ground of want of facts and some special
grounds. The demurrer was sustained.
and an appeal was taken.
TIE CONDUCTOR TO BLAME
The Supreme Court sustains the judg-
ment and, after citing authorities and
giving other reasons to support its judg-
ment, says: In this case the conductor
was merely an ordinary employe who
worked with other employees on the train,
each having certain duties to perform.
He had no power to direct the movement
OF trains. He had no authority to direct
the movement of the particular train ON
which he was employed except in accord
ance with the regulations and schedules
and timetables by which the defendant
directed the work to be done. He had no
power to employ or discharge men. 1t
cannot be said that when he started the
train before the schedule time the COM
pany directed it. He was not then acting
for the company, but against its express
OrderS.D
IRRIGATION DISTRICT BONDS.
Board of Directors of the Modesto Irri-
cation District respondent vs. William
Iregea. This was a special proceeding,
instituted in pursuance of an Act of
March 10, 1889, for the purpose of obtain
ing judicial confirmation of the validity
OF certain bonds of the district. which it
had ordered to be issued and sold. The
Act referred to is supplemental to what
is commonly known as the Wright law
The Supreme Court concludes that all the
proceedings. examined, approved and
regular and valid, but the Court did not
acquire jurisdiction to confirm the order
for the issuance of $500 900 of the bonds of
the district in this proceeding. That Or
der, however, was not essential to the
validity of the order for the sale of $780,
OO0 of bonds. The judgment and decree
is therefore modified by striking out 50
much thereof as confirms the order for
the issuance of $S00,000 of bonds, and as
SO modified it is affirmed
In the matter OF the estate of William
Westerfield, deceased, Mary b. Smith ct
al. (appellants) VS.. James G. Westerfield
ct al. This is Nevada County case and
a suit over the division of the estate. The
Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, re-
verses the order denying new trial, and
directs the court below to enter an order
dismissing the petition of the plaintiffs
and all the proceedings subsequently
taken Hereunder.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
Eleanor Murdoch {respondenh VS.. c..
w. Clarke ct al. A Lassen county case,
and civil suit, involving several thou
sand dollars; the Judgment of the lower
court is affirmed.
Nevada School District appellant VS..
b. n. Shoecraft, ct al. The suit was
brought to have the court decree that the
defendants deliver all the lots, buildings
and school-h0uSes in Nevada City, used
for the purpose of conducting the public
schools, into the possession of George E.
Shaw, j. l. Caldwell and N Douglass, who
claim to have been recently elected School
Trustees. The point relied on by the ap-
pellants is that the Act of March 25, 1874,
under which the Board of Education of
Nevada City has been acting for more
than sixteen years, is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court says the position of
the appellants is not tenable, and affirms
the judgment of the lower court.
In the matter of D. l.. Wright ct al, in
solvents. This is Tulare county case
and the judgment is affirmed.