The herald., 1893-02-11
A BATCH OF OPINIONS.

Tho Supreme Court Decides Four
Southern California Cases.
The opinion in the case of the County
Of Los Angeles respondent. We. Pablo
Reyes ct al, appellants, in which the
judgment and order appealed from were
affirmed, was received yesterday by
Deputy Supreme Clerk Sesnon. 1t was
an action to condemn certain lands for
road purposes, the contemplated road
being one designated in the code as a
private road. The jury assessed the
damages to the land taken at $50 and
the benefits at the same sum, and the
supreme court thinks there was suffi
cient evidence to sustain each of those
findings, and as to the value of the land
taken, there was evidence which, if not
contradicted, would have justified q less
valuation than that found by the jury.
The court finds no objection to the in
structions given to the jury and no error
which could prejudice appellant or
justify reversal OF the judgment.
The opinion was also received in the
case of Leonard Labory, appellant, vs..
the Los Angeles Orphan asylum, re-
spondent, an action to quiet the plain
tiff's title to tract of land in the city
of Los Angeles. The superior court
found the facts to be in accordance with
the averments of the answer and gave
judgment accordingly, the plaintiff ap-
pealing from the judgment and order
denying his motion for a new trial.
In affirming the judgment the su-
preme court concludes quite lengthy
opinion as follows:
SIo. 81 kkck Io-
fendant, the Los Angeles Orphan asy-
lUm, is now and ever since the 2lst day
of June, 1859, has been q corporation or
ganized, existing and doing business
under and by virtue of the laws of the
fendant offered all of ito testimony, and
it was received without objection or sug
gestion by the plaintiff that it had no
right to defend the action. The case
was then argued, submitted and tried
and after that the point seems to have
been first raised by specification at
tached to the statement on motion for a
new trial to the effect that the finding
that the defendant was the owner of the
land in controversy was not justified by
the evidence, because it was not shown
by the evidence that defendant had COM
piled with the provisions Of the section
named.
"We dc not think the point can be thus
raised for the first time. The objec.
tion should have been made when the
defendant was introducing it's evidence,
or at least at the conclusion of 1t. Not
having been made at any time during
the trial the objection must now be
deemed waived"
An opinion reversing the judgment in
the case of Mary A. Mcdonald, appel
liant, vs. III. L. Drew ct al, respondent,
was also received. 1t was an action in
the nature OF ejectment to recover pos
session of narrow strip of land, being
about IS inches wide and 100 feet in
length, part OF lot A, block 20 San Ber-
nardino. The defendant pleads title by
prescription through an adverse posses
sion during period of five years. The
superior court adjudged that the defend
ants were the owners of the land in
question. The plaintiff brought the ap-
peal upon the judgment roll, contend.
ing that upon the findings OF fact the
Judgment should have been in their
favor.
The supreme court think likewise,
and says: 1.-THE controversy is reduced
to the question OF law, as to whether
the possession of the defendants could
have been adverse without payment by
them of all taxes which had been levied
and assessed upon the land in question
during the Eve yearc period of the
alleged adverse possession, as required
by section 1926 Of the code of civil pro-
cedure. This question has been an
swered negatively by this court in sew
eral cases. The judgment of the lower
court is reversed and it is directed to
render judgment on the findings of fact,
in favor of plaintiff"
An opinion was also received in the
case of San Bernardino National bank,
respondent, vs.. John Anderson and J.
A. Crawford, appellants. 1t was an &C.
ton on promlssory note for $1,000, and
the superior court afiirms the judgment
Of the lower court, which was in favor
Of the plaintiff.
with nervel unstrung and heads that ache,
Wise women Bromo-Seltzer take.