Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-20
.F|GUEROA STREET PAVEMENT
1t BObs Up in a Case in the Su-
preme Court.
Postmaster Reed on Trial Charged
With Embezzlement.
Yesterdays Happenings In the Courts.
The Baker Damage Suft-Court
Notes - New Cases
Filed.

The supreme court in bank yesterday
made a somewhat unusual order in dis
missing the appeal in the case of Dorm
and Mckee against J. F. Crank, receiver
of the Pacific Cable Railroad company
of this city. na
By the order the court anticipates a
possible refusal by Judge W. P. Wade,
OF the superior court, to grant the inter
venors, Dorm and Mckee, hearing
upon the question which induced them
to appeal to the supreme court.
The question brought up by Dorm and
Mckee, bondholders, of the cable COM
pany, before Judge Wade, was whether
or not he should hold receivers certifi-
Gates issued to pay for the paving in the
company's tracks, on Figueroa street,
subject to the lien of the bondholders.
Receiver Crank petitioned Judge Wade
to be allowed to let contract for the
paving, and issue receivers certificates
therefor. Dorm and Mckee intervened,
and moved that these certificates should
be declared subordinate and subsequent
to tn lien created by the trust deed,
and the court denied the motion. where
upon they appealed, and last week the
supreme court rendered a decision,
which, in effect, was that the appeal
was premature.
The order made yesterday, which was
by Justice Paterson, Justices Harrison,
Garoutte, Mcfarland and Sharpstein,
concurring, was as follows:
"In q recent decision in this case we
held that the application for superse-
deas was premature, and upon that
ground denied the motion.
"The correctness of the decision is
conceded, and appellants consent that
the appeal from the order may be 6is-
missed. but are apprehensive that the
court below may again refuse to give
them hearing, and deny their right to
be heard in opposition to the Issuance of
receivers certificates. We are asked,
therefore, to 30 direct the court that
they may be heard on the merits ofsany
objection which they may make to fur
ther proceedings in the matter.
"We do not deem it necessary to make
any order. except to dismiss the appeal !;
but, to prevent any Misunderstanding,
it may be well to state that the inter-
venors are entitled to hearing in the
court below on the question whether re-
ceiver's certificates should be issued to
pay for the proposed work. The motion
to dismiss the appeal is granted"
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS.
In department one, the judgment of
the court below in the case of Miller ct
al. VS.. Miller ct al, was affirmed in
short opinion by Justice Garoutte, JUS
tices Paterson and Harrison concurring.
The action was to quiet the title to GER
tain land, based upon tax title.
The cases of Hicks VS.. Folks, San
Diego Flume company VS.. Chase, and
estate of Argella vs. Stockton, etc, were
ordered submitted upon briefs on file.
In the case of McConoughey VS.. the
city of San Diego, there were arguments
by O. H. McConoughey for the appel
liant and w. H. Fuller for respondent,
and the cause was submitted.
The cases of Crossman vs.. Lesher and
Crossman VS.. Kennedy were argued by
Bledsoe for appellant and Gregg for res
pondent, and submitted.
In department two the case of Nc
Donald vs. Drew ct ell, San Bernardino
National bank vs.. Anderson ct al, Scarf
vs. Aldrich, Wilkes vs Tibbetts. ct al,
were submitted upon briefs on file.
1u6 CASE VI Cu6 COuGueTu OdillOTulh
railway company ct al. vs.. the Southern
Pacific railway company was continued
to be submitted pursuant to rule 3. pro-
viding for submission of printed points
and authorities on file.
The case of Roebling Bros. & 90. We.
the Bear Valley Irrigation company was
argued by G. E.. Lapham for appellant
and q. G. Peck for respondent, and sub.
mitted.
The case Of Warner vs. Warner was
argued by H. @. Rolfe for appellant and
submitted.