The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-06-12
THREE CASES REVERSED.
Superior Court Judges Who Differed
With the Supreme Court.
The Estate of w. 3. johnson Goes to
His Widow-A San Joaquin Insur-
ance Case-One From Yuba.

Three decisions were filed by the Su-
preme Court on Saturday in the office of
the Sacramento District, reversing the
judgments in the cases of the estate of w.
B. johnson of San Joaquin, also an in
surance case from the same county, and
one appealed from Yuba.
The aforementioned decision revokes
the letters of administration issued to
Eugene w. Kay on the estate of William
B. Johnson. who was wealthy San
Joaquin farmer, against the petition Of
the deceased's widow, Mary Eliza John
son Howell, and makes her the admins
tratrix thereof.
In reviewing the case the court says:
ut appears from the evidence that on
July s, 1874. the petitioner was mother
less child, years Of age, and the daughter
of David G. Stratham; and on that day
the deceased, w. b. Johnson, then an un-
married man, together with petitioner
and her father, appeared before the then
Judge Buckley, County Judge of that
county, who made an order declaring the
petitioner adopted by the said deceased,
and that she should be regarded and
treated in all respects as his child, and
should take his family name.
The petitioner lived with the deceased
as his child from the date of her adoption
in April, 1889. w. b. Johnson had no
other children and died in January, 1891,
intestate.
Upon the foregoing evidence, which
is undisputed, the Superior Court found
that the adoption papers were not signed
or acknowledged before the County
Judge, and that the petitioner here was
never examined before the County
Judge, and as a conclusion held that the
adoption proceedings were and are in
valid"
The opinion Of the Justices reversing
the judgment follows. 1t says that the
essential foundation of the proceedings is
the consent OF the persons named in the
statute, and when this has been given in
the presence Of the proper Judge, and
manifested in writing, and by the order
OF such Judge, the contract cannot be de-
clared invalid because of some merely
technical objection to the manner in
which the Judge who signed the order of
adoption may have discharged his duty
in the premises.
The finding of the Superior Court that
the agreement Of the deceased to adopt
the petitioner, and the consent of her
father thereto, were not signed or acl-
nowledged before the County Judge is not
sustained by the evidence.
Justices DE Haven, Garoutte. McFar-
land and Fitzgerald reverse the Judgment
and order. In a separate opinion Chief
Justice Beatty concurs.
In dissenting opinion, Justices Har-
rIson and Paterson think that the order
and judgment should be affirmed.
THE OTHER CASES.
In the case of EmeIine Wallace and
Cora Herzstein against Joseph H. Sisson
and MILO \. Burke, executors of A. w.
Sisson, and Julia Ann Crocker, executrix
of Clark w. Crocker, the court reverses
the judgment of the trial court and grants
plaintiff new trial. The suit was for
Slo0,000 alleged to be due plaintiffs be-
cause of an interest in partnership.
In the action of the Stockton Com bined
Harvester and Agricultural Works
against the Glens Falls Insurance Com
pany OF New York, originally brought to
recover Sl27, 200 as insurance on the plain
tins works at Stockton, the judgment
given for plaintiffs in the lower court is
reversed and a new trial ordered.