Los Angeles herald., 1892-08-09
FROM THE SUPREME COURT,
A Case Decided Against the
Southern Pacific.
Another Suit Involving Boom Time
Railway Company.
A Note for Stock in a Road which Was
Not Completed on Time-An Al
hambra Water suit-Other
Law Cases.

Clerk Ashmore, of the supreme court
yesterday received batch of opinion
from that body. They are given below
Jefferson ct al, appellants. VS.. Hewitt
ct al, respondents-On July IA, 1888
defendants executed and delivered II
the Santa Ana, Fairview and Pacifi
Railway company their nen-negotiabl
note for the sum of $4,000, payable il
four months, which was assigned to th
Fairview Development company, and b,
the last named company assigned t.
these appellants. The court found tina
the note was given for fifty shares of th'
capital stock of the company first named
but that it was made and delivered
upon the sole condition and induce
ment of the promise and assurance O.
said company that it would complete itt
railway from Fairview to the Pacific
ocean before the maturity OF said prom
ise in writing, to-wit, within sixty OF
ninety days from said date"
This the railroad company did not do,
and the lower court so found. The de-
and the case remanded for new trial.
The decision says: "The fair import OF
the testimony is that the representations
referred to, were the mere confident ex-
| preston of opinion of one member of the
board of directors that the road would
be completed within ninety days, and
that the defendants, placing confidence
in that opinion, executed the note in
suit"
In the suit of Thomas Barrows ct al, i,
appellants, vs.. Lewis G. Fox ct al, re-
l~spandents, an action relating to the
ownership of water flowing from a
spring in Brunson cafion, the judgment
OF the lower court is affirmed.
| In the case of Blame, respondent, vs.
the Paymaster company, an action re-
| garding notes given in an Arizona min
ing transaction, the judgment and order
OF the lower court are reversed. The
superior court is directed to find the
amount due to plaintiff from the Esper-
to in the complaint, and thereupon rem
der judgment in accordance with this
opinion.
Blondean, appellant, vs. Snyder ct al,
respondents. This was an action for
peal WAS taken from an order made May
l5, 1891, striking out certain portions Of
judgment rendered November IA,
1888. The supreme court finds as to the
defendant, Rosa A. Woodford, the order
appealed from is reversed.
Charles III. Dunton, respondent, vs.
VIM. Niles, appellant. Plaintiff as as
signee of W. w. Montague & Co., sues
to recover damages for breach of an al
legged contract whereby defendant agreed
to settle and pay to W. w. Montague &
Co. certain damages to their goods and
merchandise, caused by an excavation
made by defendant adjoining and under
their warehouse at Los Angeles, and also
for certain tin cold and delivered to de.
| fendant. The supreme court says
Judgment should be reversed unless
plaintiff within twenty days after filing
the remittitur shall stipulate to reduc-
ton of 500 on the judgment, in which
case the judgment, so modified, should
be affirmed. G
Combination Land company, appel
liant, va. A. O. Morgan, respondent.
This was an action relating to the pur-
chase of real estate, and the judgment
and orderof the lower court is reversed.
Alhambra Addition Water company,
appellant, va. Solomon Richardson ct
al, respondents. This action was
brought to prevent the defendants from
maintaining certain water gate, in a
pipe conveying water for irrigation and
other purposes, belonging to plaintiff /;
and to prevent the defendants from
taking from that pipe a greater guam
tity of water than what the plaintiff
claimed the defendants had legal right
to use. The court below refused to
grant the relief, by injunction asked by
the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in
favor of the defendants. The plaintiff
moved for new trial, which was re-
fused, and the appeal is from the order
denying it's motion. The supreme court
says: For the reason that they took
more water at one time than they we're
entitled to, and that the court below
based its finding as to their right upon
an erroneous construction of the former
judgment, we are of the opinion that it
committed in this respect error. For
these reasons we advise that the order ap-
pealed from be reversed.
Flora Morgan, respondent, VS. South
ern Pacific Railway company appellant
This action WAS brought to recover
damages for personal injuries alleged to
have been caused by the negligence of
the defendant, a railroad company. 1t
is averred in the complaint that while
plaintiff was in the act of alighting from
the car of defendant, at Delano, it was,
through the negligence of defendants
servants and employees, suddenly and
violently put in motion, whereby plain
tiff was, without any fault on her part,
thrown upon the ground and seriously
injured. The jury gave verdict in ia
vor of plaintiff for $4,000, for which
amount judgment was rendered, and
defendant appeals from the judgment
and an order denying new trial. The
supreme court affirms this judgment.
Flora Morgan, plaintiff and respond
ent va. Southern Pacific Railway COM
pany, defendant and appellant-The
action is the same as above, except that
$40, 1000 was awarded, for the reason that
plaintiffs child, 2 years old, died nine
days after the above accident, of pneu-