The herald., 1893-01-17
The Supreme Court Surprises
an Appealing Defendant.
Nine Decisions Received Yesterday
by Deputy Clerk Ashmore.
A Surprise in the Divorce Case OF Boyd
VS.. Boyd-A Suit In which .
Broken Bank Figures.
Other Opinions.

= The supreme court in the case of S. J
q Boyd vs. e. II. Boyd, divorce sui
: administer quite an unusual repriman
to the defendant. The opinion is a
follows:
. This appeal was taken from iudp
, ment in favor of the plaintiff and iron
+ an order refusing new trial.
The appeal from the order has bee,
dismissed by the appellate tribunal an,
the matter now stands on an appea
from the judgment alone. This appes
was not taken within go days from ths
rendition of the judgment. go that nc
exception to the decision on the ground
that 1t is not supported by the evidence
can be considered. The findings must
therefore, be held to be supported by
the evidence. The appellant contends.
however. that the findings are insult
clent. The findings are general. viz
That all the allegations of the plaintiffs
complaint are true; that all the allega-
tlons OF the answer of the defendant
and OF the averments thereto are untrue
and false, except the allegations con-
tanned in allegations one and two, viz
that the parties were married as alleged
In the complaint. and are hus band and
wife, and that the issue of said mar
rage was correctly stated in that plead.
ing: Such findings have often been
held to be sufficient. Richards ys.
Shear, 20 CAL, 1856.
1t Is further claimed by the defendant
and appellant that the court abused its
discretion in awarding property tn the
plaintiff. The decree which follows the
hndings and conclusions of law does not
show such to be the fact, and we have
nothing to do with the evidence in the
case. The court seems by the decree to
have set aside to the plaintiff, the "in-
nocent party" the homestead taken
from the community property, which is
SUBJECT to mortgage of $4,000. and a
small amount OF personal property.
leaving to the defendant all other prop.
erty heretofore owned by the parties in
community. This is in accordance with
the legal power of the trial court in a
proper case under section l46 of the
Civil Code, subdivisions l and 2.
AS to the other questions discussed hv
the appellant, it is sufficient to saw that
by the dismissal of the appeal from the
order denying new trial thew are NOT
before the appellate court for considera-
ton.
We perceive no prejudicial error in
the record. and advise that the iudp.
"enC @ oe alnrmed. FooTE, G.
we concur: VAN CLIEF, G..
HAYNES, @.
For the reasons given in the forepoino
opinion the Judgment is affirmed. And
IL appearing to the court that tbis an |
peal ls without any merit whatever and
nas peen nrosT.',,.af, f9r. .delav n 70 or-
costs. PATERSON, j..
HARRISON, j.
GARoUTTE, j.
An opinion affirming the judgment in
the matter of the estate of Luis Antonio |
Arguello, San Diego case, was also re-
ceived.
The appeal was by the administrator
of the estate of the decedent from an
order of the superior court of San Diego
county, requiring him to pay to the
creditors of the estate, whose claims
had been duly presented and allowed,
certain sums of money.
The sum of money in controversy was
$4846.S0, which was received by the ad-
ministrstor for and on account of the
estate, between July 5, 1891, and Octo-
ber 15, 1891, and deposited by him in
the California Savings bank in San
Diego in his own name.
The superior court found the facts to
be, that at the time the funds were de-
posted by the administrator in the
savings bank, it was reputed to be
safe and solvent bank and place of de-
posit; that the deposit was made in the
individual name of the administrator,
without any designation or indication OF
his representative capacity.
In depositing the funds the admins
traitor acted in good faith. November
12, 1891, the savings bank became sud-
denly wholly insolvent, suspended busi-
ness and has not been able to pay the
amount deposited by the administrator.
1t was held that the administrator had
been guilty of no negligence or want of
care except in depositing the money in
HIS individual name instead OF his rcp-
resentative capacity, or in the name of
the estate. He was on this account held
to be responsible and ordered to pay the
money to the creditors of the estate.
The supreme court, after referring to
numerous decisions in point, sustains
the order appealed from, requiring the
administrator to pay back the money.
The court afiirms the judgment of the
superior court in the case of Candelario
Ybarra, ,respondent,vs Stephen Sylvany.
appellant. 1t was an action to quiet
plaintiffs title to parcel of land in the
city Of Los Angeles. The court found
that the defendant had been in peace
able possession of the land for more
than five years before the commence
ment of the suit, but during all that
time the plaintiff was the owner. The
defendant moved for new trial, which
was denied and then appealed. The
court sees no merit in the appeal, and
orders the judgment affirmed.
The court sustains the Judgment in
the case Of the People of the State Of
California va. Charles d. Davis, appel
liant. The appellant was convicted oi
grand larceny in Los Angeles and ap'
pealed from the order denying him 8
. new trial. The appellant contended
J that the evidence was insufficient tt
! support the verdict. Davis was charged
} with stealing pocket-book and 81
, gold piece from Jane Doe. The woman
, was not present at the trial, neither wa
her testimony taken. But her poke
was picked and it is considered by th'
court that the fact of the property beini
in her possession at the time it wa
taken was sufficient evidence of owner
: ship. The court considers the affidavit
+ of newly discovered evidence wholly in
p sufficient to justify the granting of mo
tion for new trial.
The court in an opinion in the case q