The record-union., 1892-09-01
A SACRAMENTO CASE.
The Judgment Therein Affirmed by
the Supreme Court.
Laura Jones VS.. Frank Durrer-De-
cisions Also Filed in Six
Other Cases.

Decisions in seven cases were filed in
Deputy Clerk Govan's Office yesterday
by the Supreme Court.
The case of Laura Jones vs.. Frank
Durrer (appellant, was a Sacramento
County case, being an action of unlawful
detainer, brought to recover possession of
tract of land alleged to have been leased
by the respondent and plaintiff to the
defendant, for damages for its detention,
and that an alleged lease be declared for
feited. The grounds claimed in favor of
the plaintiffs recovery are that the de-
fendant had forfeited his right to possess
sion by virtue of certain conditions con-
tanned in the lease, and that plaintiffs S
right OF recovery was complete.
The main ground upon which the de-
fendant resisted plaintiffs claim seemed
TO be that he insisted that the agreement
set out III the complaint was not such as
created the relation of conventional land
lorc md tenant.
The instrument in question is very
long. The Supreme Court says the case
comes strictly within the rule laid down
IN " alls VS.. Preston (25 Cal. So, and in
Smith VS.. Shultz lS9 Cal. j.G) 1t is a
letting for share OF the produce of the
land, and the increase of certain hogs,
cattle, fowls, etc. 1t provides certain
conditions as to the cuitil alton Of certain
lands in corn, for the grnbbing OF other
lands and putting them in alfalfa for the
year 1881; Tor the making OF butter,
cheese, etc; the party OF the Iirst part TO
own one-half OF All such produce and
one-half of all the increase OF said stock.
| When the butter made was fit for market
| tie party of the first part was to be
! entitled To one-half, etc
Alter going over the conditions of the
! lease and contract at length, the Supreme
! Court says:
1t appearing, among other things. that
at The date OF the beginning Of the action,
/ and continuously atterward, defendant
! refused TO sell the butter and cheese pro-
! duced on the farm together, and divide
| the proceeds thereof, as he coVenanted he
, would do, and that certain steers which
! defendant cOvenanted to sell and remove
from tbe farm during the current year of
1880 had not been sold but still remained
! on the farni. These renewed breeches
since the reception of rent are sufficient
without mentioning others which per-
maps exist OF the same nature, to remove
from the case any question OF waiver so
as to defeat plaintiffs right to maintain
the action.
These seem to be the principal points
made Tor the reversal OF the judgment
ana order denying new trial and we do
! not perceive that with reference to them
and others made and not necessary to be
determined, that any prejudicial error
has been committed. We therefore ad-
wise that the Judgment and order be
| affirmed"
The decision was written by Justice
Foote, and concurred in by Haynes,
BeIcher, Sharpstein, DeHayen and Nc
Farland.
OTHER CASES.
In the case of the Stockton Savings and
Loan Society VS.. z. f., w. r. and L. M.
Glddlngs tappellants the judgment of
the Superior Court of san Joaquin
County was reversed and new trial or
dered.
In the case of Susan P. Green. admin
| lstratriX, etc, VS.. Arthur Thornton. an
pellant, also of San Joaquin County, the
decision OF the Superior Court in favor of
the plaintiff was reversed and the cause
remanded.
In the case of the County of San Joa-
quin VS.. Budd ct al, respondents, an
action brought to recover two rooms in
the courthouse, in which Judgment was
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the
decision of the Superior Court was also
reversed.
| In the case of w. C. Maze VS., Alexan-
der Gordon ct al, brought in Fresno
County and Judgment given for defend
ant, the judgment of the lower court is
reversed and new trial ordered.
In the case of the Odd Fellows Savings
Bank vs.. H,B. Turman, defendant and
| respondent, the bank appealed from the
decision of the Superior Court of Colusa
! County, but the same was affirmed.
In the case of Mahoney VS.. Bostwick,
appellant, the action was brought in
Stanislaus County and the defendant ap-
pealed from the decision of the Superior
Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision.