Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-29
SUPREME COURT.
A Number Of Opinions Re-
ceived Yesterday.
A Case Involving Real Estate
Questions.
Constable MOnahan Will Get His
Claim for Mileage.
II. 8. Babcock and the Story Note-A
Matter of Bond-Other Inter-
esting Legal
Matters.

Clerk Ashmore of the supreme court
yesterday received the following opin-
ions which nave been just handed down :
San Gabriel Wine company, plaintiff
and appellant, VS.. William Behlow and
wife, defendants and respondents.
This appeal is from an order denying
appellants motion for new trial in an
action brought to recover $500, alleged
to be due for balance OF purchase price
of a tract OF land sold by plaintiff to de-
| PENDANTS for $500, upon which the sum
of $4,000 was paid. Plaintiff alleged de-
| PENDANTS agreed to pay $4,000 for the
land, of which $4,000 was paid, and q
conveyance of premises was executed by
plaintiff to defendants upon promise OF
defendants to pay 5000 more, and de-
PENDANTS denied they ever agreed to pay
more than $4,000 for said land. This,
with some other issues, were submitted
to Jury which found against the plain
tiff and in favor of defendants therein.
Judgment and order of the lower court
affirmed.
TT. Monahan, respondent, VS.. County
| of San Diego. Plaintiff, as constable,
charged defendant fees for services in
criminal cases $57S.75. The board oi
supervisors allowed him 1884 and re-
jected $194.75, on the ground that it was
for mileage in bringing various per,
sons arrested by him from the place oil
arrest to the court from which the war
rant of arrest was issued, or from the
place of arrest to the county Jail, in ad-
dition to mileage for going from the
place where said process was issued tc
the place where the arrest was made
That is to say, claimed mileage for both
going to arrest such persons and fol
bringing them before the magistrate o.
to prison, from the place of arrest.
Plaintiff sued and recovered judgmen
for his entire demand. The defendan
brings this appeal from the judgment OIL
the Judgment roll. Judgment OF the
lower court affirmed.
First National bank of San Diego, re
spondent, VS.. E. S. Babcock, jr., appel
liant. This was an action upon prom
issory note made by one Story, payabl
to the order of plaintiff ninety DAYS afte
date, and containing clause that
suit were commenced to enforce its pay
ment an additional per cent should b
paid. The lower court found the plain
tiff was entitled to recover from tn
defendant the amount due on the not
after deducting certain credits. Defend
ant appealed. Judgment of the lowe
court affirmed.
California Southern Hotel company
respondent, vs. G. R. Calender, appe
liant. Plaintiff is California corpors
ton, and defendant subscribed $4,000 t
the capital stock and paid $4,000 an
refused to pay the balance of 5000
Judgment was given in the lower coul
for plaintiff in $4,000, and defendar
appealed. Judgment affirmed.
Kutz, respondent, vs. Forquer ct al, d.
fendants and appellants. This was a
action upon bond alleged to have bee
executed by the. defendants, Forqus
and Deyo, as principals, and the defent
arts, Allen, Smith and Stewart, as sur,
ties, conditioned for the faithful pc
formance by Forquer and Deyo of a ce
tain contract by which they agreed
build and deliver to plaintiff, free of il
debtedness, liens, ETC., certain hous
Judgment went for plaintiff against A
len, Smith and Stewart, and they al
pealed from the judgment and from q
order denying new trial. Judgmel
and order appealed from are affirmed.
Giacomo Riciotti, respondent, vs..
s. Clement, appellant. Appeal fro
: judgment and order refusing new tria
, This was an action of claim and deliver
to recover possession of two horse
, which plaintiff alleges defendant ''st
unlawfully holds and detains." I'll
judgment and order of the lower cou
were reversed.
Ernest Cert, appellant, vs. Jaco
Pfeging ct al. Appeal from judgmer
and the order DENYING a new tris
This action was brought against tt
city of San Luis Obispo and it's sire,
superintendent to eDjoin the opening
a street therein. The supreme court r
mands the case to the lower court wit
directions to set aside the judgment
favor of the defendants, and enter jud
ment for the plaintiff as demanded
. his complaint.
A. E. Young, appellant, We. Franc
Brady, respondent. Action of a
sumpsit for money alleged to have bee
loaned by plaintiff to defendant. Jud,
ment for defendant, from which, ar
from an order denying his motion for
} new trial, the plaintiff brings an appes
Judgment of the lower court affirmed.
San Gabriel Wine company, respon'
ent, vs. William and Augusta Behloy
appellants. This is an appeal frol
order of court denying motion
defendants for new trial, as
their counter claim in an actic
brought by the plaintiff to I
cover $500 alleged to be a balance dr
plaintiff from defendants for purchas
money of block OF land in Ramon
The order Of lower court that appellan
sustained no damage is affirmed.