Los Angeles herald., 1892-04-02
THE SUPREME COURT
Five Opinions Handed Down
Yesterday.
The Important Case of Glassell
VS.. Coleman.
A Question as to Sale Under Ex-
emptiOn of HOmesteads.
Two Cases Against an Improvement
Company-A San Diego Land
Suit-The Points of the
Decisions.

Clerk Ashmore of the supreme court
received five opinions in local cases from
that tribunal on the late train yester-
day afternoon. The substance OF the
opinions is given below:
Andrew Glassell, appellant, We.
Nicholas D. Coleman ct al, respondent.
| The plaintiff and the defendant Wilson
entered into an agreement September [,
1889. by which plaintiff agreed to sell
and Wilson to purchase tract of Los
Angeles county land for $182, 1000, pay
able in installments, and that paper in
the nature OF promissory note should
be executed to cover balance due.
| The plaintiff six months after, Septem-
ber l., 1889, notified Wilson that he
chose to consider the whole of the prin-
cipal sums named in the installment
note as Immediately due and payable
under the conditions therein enumer-
ated. Plaintiff claimed to have been
damaged to the extent of $4,000 and
brought suit for $4,000 against all of
the defendants, the respondents herein;
the defendants, other than Wilson,
demurred to the complaint for it's insult
ficiency upon the ground that it stated
no cause OF action against them, and
the court having sustained their de-
murrer, judgment was entered dismiss
ing the action, from which the plaintiff
appealed. The opinion of the supreme
court reads: I'VE are of the opinion
that the complaint fails to state cause
OF action against the respondents and
that the court below correctly sustained
their demurrer. The judgment is
affirmed"
W. F. Heathman and wife, plaintiffs
and appellants, VS.. VIII. Holmes ct al,
defendants and respondents. Plaintiffs
obtained writ of Injunction enjoining
the sale under execution of certain
premises claimed by them as home
stead. On motion OF defendants the
injunction was dissolved; and from the
order dissolving it the plaintiffs appe !.
The only question in the case is whether
or not the premises constitute the legal
homestead of the appellants. The clos
ing paragraph of the opinion OF the su-
preme court is as follows:
"We are satisfied that from the facts
| developed in the case at bar the appel
| lants are entitled to their asserted home
stead rights; and that the court erred
| in dissolving the injunction. OF course,
| the decision here has no effect upon any
right which respondents may assert to
| reach the excess of the value of the
property over the homestead valuation.
The order dissolving the injunction is
reversed"
s. E. A. Palmer, plaintiff and ap.
pellant vs.. St. Elmo Investment Co.
ct al, defendants and respondents.
This case is in all essential respects the
came as the case of Goodlett vs.. St. FL
mo Investment Co., this day decided,
and on the authority of that case the
| judgment of the superior court, SO far
as it directs the docketing of a defci.
ency judgment against the St. Elmo In
vestment Co., is reversed in other re-
spects it is affirmed. The cause is re-
manded to the superior court to find up
on the evidence before it. and such
other evidence as the parties may sub.
nit, who were the members of the st.
| Elmo Investment Co. at the date of the
execution of the notes in suit, and to
order the docketing of a deficiency
| judgment accordingly.
j. B. Goodlet, plaintiff and appellant,
vs.. st Elmo Investment Co. ct al, de-
fendants and respondents. This was
suit to foreclose mortgage. The cause
was tried in the superior court without
Iuiy dhO AuuihSo OAplCociy WolVCu Oy
the parties. The court made and en-
tered decree in favor of the plaintiff,
who appealed. The supreme court finds
as follows: "The Judgment of the su-
perior court so far as it directs the dock
citing OF deficiency judgment against
the st. Elmo Investment Co., is re-
versed, in other respects it is affirmed.
The cause is remanded with directions
to the superior court to find upon the
evidence before it and such other evil
dence as the parties may submit who
were the members of the St. Elmo In
vestment Co. at the date of the execu-
ton of the notes in suit, and to order
the docketing of deficiency judgment
accordingly"
| q. Montgomery, plaintiff and appel
liant, vs. Pacific Coast Land Bureau,
defendant and respondent. Defendant
company in 1856 was engaged at San
Diego in selling land on commission.
They sold to A. & S. Hart tract of
land, belonging to plaintiff, for $4,000.
In the catalogue issued by defendant it
was stated "title was perfect" A ques-
tion arose as to title, and defendant re-
turned 5000, 10 per cent of the price
of the price agreed on to Hart. Plain
tiff sued to recover same, and on a suit
the lower court found for the defendant;
plaintiff appealed, and the supreme
court reverses the judgment and order
of the lower court.
| NauraI01a Curad In Tiftaen Minutes.