The herald., 1893-09-05
THE BANK ASSESSMENT CASES.
The Supreme Court Reyerses
the Lower Court.
Cases Involving the Raise by the
Board Of Supervisors.
Judge Wade Had Decided That They
Exceeded Their Powers in tho
Cascs-A Mechnnics'
Lion Case.

In the case OF the Excelsior Paving
company, respondent, vs. Leach ct al.
appellants, the Supreme court says in an
opinion received yesterday: Upon the
authority Of Brown VS.. Jenks, opinion
filed March 7. 1893. the judgment and
order denying new trial herein are re-
versed.
The judgment is also reversed in the
case of the Security Savings Bank and
Trust company, respondent. VS.. The
Board OF Supervisors of Los Angeles
county, ct ais, appellants. The court
says: In Farmers & Merchants bank OF
Los Angeles We. The Board of Equaliza-
tion of Los Angeles, most of the ques.
tions involved in this appeal were de-
termined adversely to the respondent.
The additional point now presented,
that the Legislature could not confer
upon the state board of equalization au-
thority to extend the time within which
the county board of equalization could
act, must also, under the principles de-
clared in that case. be determined
against the respondent; and upon the
authority of that case the Judgment is
reversed"
The same action, and for the same
reasons, is taken by the supreme court
in the case of the Los Angeles Savings
bank, respondent, va. The Board Of Su-
pervisors of Los Angeles county ct al,
and the case of Main Street Savings
Bank and Trust company, respondent,
VS.. The Board of Supervisors of Los An
geleH county ct al.
These cases were those in which the
supervisors. sitting as board OF equali-
cation, raised the assessments of the
banks by adding lines of solvent credits
which the assessor had not included in
his assessment.
KIEssIG VS.. ALLsPAUGE AFFIRMED.
The supreme court has affirmed the
decision of the superior court in the case
of Kiessig vs. Allspaugh ct al, in &C
cordance with an opinion received by
Deputy Clerk Sesnon yesterday for
filing.
The plaintiff sought to recover
$1807.25 upon q building contractors
bond executed to him by the defendants
Allspaugh and Hall as principals, and
by the defendant Lundeen, as surety.
The bond sued on was executed October
Is, 1887, and was to hold Charles Kies-
Gig harmless against any claims, de-
mands or liens. of any character, for ma
terial or labor expending in building the
house in question.
The original building contract was not
recorded, and the price therein agreed
to be paid for the building was $4,000.
The building was completed according
to the plans in the original contract, but
the plaintiff was compelled to pay, in
addition, the amount sued for by him in
the action, to discharge liens for ma
terials used and labor performed on the
building.
The superior court gave Judgment in
favor of the plaintiff and the defendant,
Lundeen, appealed.
The supreme court, after quite a re-
view of the law applicable, says that the
sole purpose of the bond was to protect
the plaintiff against the consequences oi
failure Of the contractors to pay the
personal obligations which they might
incur for labor and materials, in the
event that they actually constructed for
him the building referred to in the con-
enforce it according to its terms. The
court says that the case of the Schallert-
Ganahl Lumber company VS.. Neal, 90
Cal.s 2l3. cited by appellant, did sustain
his contention, but upon more careful
consideration of the question therein de.
cided, they are not satisfied with the
conclusion reached in that case. The
judgment and order are therefore af-
firmed. The opinion is by Justice De
Haven, Justice Fitzgerald, Chief Justice
Beatty and Justice Mcfarland concur
ring, while Justices Garoutte and Harri-
son dissent.