Los Angeles herald., 1892-04-05
THE SUPREME COURT.
It Opens Its Local Session
Yesterday.
Only Few Unimportant Mo-
tiOns Made.
A Number Of Interesting Decisions
Handed Down.
The Points Of tho Various Decisions.
Law Points Of General Interest
in This Part Of
the State.

The supreme court convened here
yesterday morning, all of the justices
being in attendance. They heard a
number of unimportant motions and
handed down the following opinions:
San Gabriel Valley Land and Water
company, respondent, vs.. Wilmer
Bros. Co. An opinion was prepared
by Commissioner Vanclief. After tull
consideration in bank we adopt that
opinion and the conclusion therein
reached; and for the reasons therein
given the judgment and order appealed
from are affirmed. Justices Harrison
and Paterson do not concur.
Willamette Steam Mills company ct
al, respondents, vs. M. Kremer ct al,
appellants. In August, 1887, the ap-
pellants made contract in writing
with one Lane for the construction OF a
frame building. Lane commenced
work under the contract in August, but
the contract was not filed in the
recorders office until October. The
court finds the building was completed
February %, 1888, and also that in jan
uary it had been accepted by the archi-
tect as finished, and that upon such ac-
ceptance it had been occupied by the
appellants prior to its actual compile
tion. Claims of lien in behalf of the
three plaintiffs herein were filed in the
recorders office on the Sth, 18th and
18th days of March, respectively, and
the said claimants, having thereafter
begun separate actions for their enforce
ment, the three actions were consol-
idated, and upon their trial judgment
was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs,
from which, and from an order denying
a new trial, the defendants appealed.
The Judgment and order denying new
trial are vacated, and the court below
is directed to permit the plaintiffs to
amend their complaints in the matters
indicated in this opinion, and therefore
to enter it's judgment in their favor upon
the findings already made.
The people vs. j. w. Murray (San
Diego county,. The defendant was tried
and convicted of the crime of murder.
He appealed to this court from the
judgment rendered in the premises and
from an order refusing new trial. The
judgment was affirmed, but the order
denying a new new trial was reversed.
The order denying new trial is al
firmed.
Southern California Lumber company
appellant, vs.. Ocean Beach Hotel com.
pany. On December l, 1888, plaintiff
obtained judgment against the de.
fendant foreclosing material mans
lien upon block of land in San Diego
and directing sale of property and ap'
plication of proceeds to payment ol
amounts adjudged due. The supreme
court holds GAS the only ground upor
which respondent herein asked to have
sale set aside was that it was made aftel
the return day OF the writ, and, as thii
was the only ground upon which the
court made the order, it should be re
versed, and it is so ordered"
Willamette Steam Mills company e.
AL, respondents, VS.. Los Angeles Col
lege company ct al, appellants. Actor
for the foreclosure of several mechanics
liens. Judgment and order denying {
new trial are reversed as to the respond
ents, the Los Angeles Planning Mil
company, the California Door company
the Harper-Reynolds company, B. A
Breaky and Charles B. Tidball ct al.
and the court is directed to enter judg
ment upon it's findings in favor of th'
appellant as against the said respond
ente, and as to the respond
ents Willamette Steam Mills Lum
ber and Manufacturing company
Robert Thompson and Mcleod 4
O'Leary, the order denying new tria
is affirmed, and the court below is di
rected to enter it's judgment directing
sale OF the premises described in the &C
ton, and the application of the pro
ceeds thereof to the satisfaction of tn
amounts for which it finds that the sait
respondents respectively are entitled tt
liens thereon.
Henry T. Gage ct al, appellants, vs.
John g. Downey ct al, respondents
This is an action of ejectment. Judg
ment went for the defendants and thi
appeal is prosecuted from such judg
ment and the order denying plaintiffs
motion for a new trial. The supreme
court finds: The judgment and orde
are affirmed as to the land embraced il
the said one.fourth of the Portilla pat
ent, except as to the twenty-five one
hundredths of the Moss League, and al
to said interest the judgment and ordel
are reversed and the cause remandet
for new trial.