Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-01

pany-InlS suit was DrOugnt TO lOFlelV
the franchise OF the defendant, for it's
failure and refusal to comply with the
water rates fixed by the council. The
case is now submitted on demurrer to
the complaint.
II @. Marsh vs. city and others-rhis
suit has been tried and won by the city,
The action was brought for the fore
closure of street lien on certain prop
erty claimed by the city as part OF
Pasadena avenue.
City of Los Angeles VS.. M. d. johnson
This action was brought to recover
certain interest which the city claimed
was due it during the time Mr.. johnson
was enjoined from turning the city
money over to the City bank. The de-
cision of the supreme court in the case
of Yarnell vs. Hazard being adverse to
the claim of the city that it had the
right to loan the public funds. the case
against Mr.. johnson has been dis
missed.
During the past year the following
actions have been instituted in which
the city or its officers have an interest !:
City of Los Angeles VS.. Louis Wilson.
A suit brought to recover piece OF land
on Buena Vista street occupied by Will
SesoN
was tried and decided in favor of the
CITY for portion of the land claimed
and in favor OF Wilson for the remainder.
The city also recovered judgment for its
costs.
I. F. joyce VS.. Los Angeles city ct al.
This action was brought to foreclose a
mechanics lien on one OF the public
school buildings. An order OF dismissal
has been filed as to the city and the case
settled between the plaintiff and the
contractor.
II. T. Spencer ct al. VS.. city council
This action was brought to compel the
| CITY council to accept the bid OF the
Daily Journal to do the city printing.
Upon the hearing of the demurrer to
| the complaint the action was decided in
favor of the city council.
Los Angeles Cemetery association
vs.. city-This suit was brought for the
purpose of recovering portion of Ever
green avenue claimed by the Cemetery
association. The city won the case
upon the trial in the superior court and
plaintiff is now preparing to appeal to
| the supreme court.
j. II. Davies VS.. Hutchinson, street
SUPERINTENDENT, ct al.-This action is
brought to enjoin the delivery of deed
to purchaser at sale of delinquent as
sessment for the widening of First street.
The suit is at issue and will be tried
very soon.
Davies VS.. E. H. Hutchinson and
Kate l.. Parkins-Is similar to last case
and is in same condition.
Davies VS.. Hutchinson and w. ID.
Harralson-Is similar to last case and
in same condition.
City of Los Angeles VS.. Southern Cali
fornia Railway company-This suit was
brought to recover from said railway
company the cost of the repairs to the
Buena Vista street bridge, rendered
necessary by reason of the bridge OF the
company striking the city's bridge DUR
ing the high water in the river in De-
cember, 1889.
w. E. De Groot VS.. city Of Los An
geles-This suit was brought in the
Justices court upon an assignment to
plaintiff by w. G. Lockwood of his
salary warrant for the month of Sep
tember, 1890. The case is now pending
in the superior court on appeal from the
| Justices court.
City of Los Angeles vs.. Mary Camona
Adams and others-This suit is brought
to cut down First street and the streets
lntersecting First street. This suit is
waiting upon the decision of the court
in the Temple street case.
City vs.. Alice Dehail--This case was
brought to condemn certain land for the
purpose of widening First street east.
This case has been decided adversely to
the city and will be appealed to the su
preme court.
City of Los Angeles VS.. City bank
This suit was brought to recover interest
from the City bank for use of the city
money. The case has been tried and
submitted to the court, and decision
may be expected soon.
City OF Los Angeles vs. John Long
| Suit brought to recover certain taxes on
personal property. Defendant paid
| taxes sued for and costs of action, and it
was thereupon dismissed.
City VS.. Robert Boswell and others
| Suit brought by the city to have the
defendants interplead as to $500 due
! Boswell under his contract with the
city and claimed by several defendants.
| This action was settled and suit dis
missed as to the city, the city recover
ing it's costs.
Robert Beyrle vs. board of education
Suit brought by Mr.. Beyrle to recover
1888 SO claimed to be due him under q
contract for constructing cement fioorin
High school, city. This action was
tried and decided infavor of the board o.
education.
Gilbert Smith VS.. J. II. Glass, chief O.
police-This suit is brought to recover
one-half of reward alleged to have beer
paid the chief OF police for the recovery
of certain lost diamonds. The case is a
issue and will be set for trial at next
term of court.
Security Savings Bank and Trust com
pany VS.. Hinton. city assessor-Thi
suit was brought to enjoin the assesso
from collecting taxes upon certain per
sonal property as assessed by the cit.
assessor. This Injunction was on tn
hearing denied, the taxes were collecte'
and the city had judgment for its costs
Security Savings Bank and Trus
company vs., Hinton, city assessor-Thi
suit was brought to recover S733.
seized by the city assessor to cover tn
amount due as claimed by him for take
upon personal property. Judgmentwa
rendered IN favor of the city assessor
An appeal has been taken by the ban
to the supreme court.
Main-street Savings Bank and Truf
company vs. Hinton, city assessor-Thl
suit was brought to recover $l075.5'
seized by the assessor to cover taxes o
personal property. Same question II