The herald., 1893-02-28
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS,
A Number Of Cases of Interest
Finally Settled.
Most of Them Of General Interest in
Southern California.
Notes of Cases Which Wore on Trial in
the Various COurts-Few Euits
Which We're Filed
Yesterday.

the following opinions were received
yesterday morning from the supreme
court, for fling in this city, by Deputy
Clerk Seepon:
G. V. Norton, appellant, vs.. Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad company,
respondent. This Is an appeal by plain.
tiff from an order of the superior court,
granting a motion of defendant to quash
the service of summons, to set aside and
vacste the default of defendant, and to
set aside and vscate the judgment
which has been entered in the case, in
favor OF respondent the court below
upon an opinion prepared by Belcher,
c., affirmed. $50 Pac. Rep. 5S5). Upon a
petition by appellant, urging strongly
that there WAS no Authority in the court
to grant said motion. A hearing was
ordered in bank, after further and
full consideration of the point made, the
| court was satisfied that correct con-
clusion had been reached, and therefore
the order appealed from was affirmed
Crossman, respondent, vs. Remission,
|
an accusation against the defendant, who
ia q member OF The board of trustees of
| the city of San Bernardino, charging him
with having wiliully violated his official
duty as city official, and asking that he
be removed from Office. 1t was alleged
that while holding the Office of trustee
he leased a certain building to the city,
to be used by the latter as a city hall,
and that he received pay for the build
| ing; that he also let TO certain city Of
| fCiels teams belonging to firm of livery
stable proprietors of which he was o
member, and collected pay from the city
for the use thereof.
| A demurrer to the accusation and a
motion to dismiss the proceedings were
| filed and overruled. Thereupon an an
Hwer was filed, the cause was heard on
the merits, the allegations of the COM
plant were found to be true, and judg-
ment was entered as prayed for.
From this judgment the defendant has
| appealed. The court reversed the judg-
ment and issued directions to the court
below to dismiss the proceedings.
| Crossman. appellant, Va. Leeher, re-
spondent. This is an action based on
the same grounds as the preceding one.
| Plaintiff seeks to remove defendant
from Office as city trustee. The matter
was heard before another department of
the superior court and Judgment was
entered In favor OF defendant for his
costs, and plaintiff has appealed. APP
pellant contended that under section
889 of the Penal Code, plaintiff is au-
thorized to commence and prosecute
this proceeding. The court ruled that
when the proceedings are for any wiliul
or corrupt misconduct in office, other
than such as are mentioned in section
| 772, they must be commenced by accu.
sation presented by q grand jury, as
provided in section 758. 1t is only when
the misconduct complained OF consists
in charging and collecting illegal fees, or
failure or neglect to perform the official
duties imposed upon the officer of the
law, that the prosecution may be had
upon the complaint OF an individual.
| Wherefore the court affirmed the
judgment.
Aba Haas, assignee, respondent, Va.
W. f. Whittier ct al, appellants. This
| is an action brought to recover q sum of
money which plaintiff as assignee of
| Edgar Sessions, an inaolvent debtor,
lays claim to in his position aa assignee,
by reason of the defendants having OBJ
tanned from the debtor and converted to
their own use goods delivered to them
in payment of money owing to defend
ants by the iusovent. Plaintiff claims
that defendant intended to satisfy GER
tain creditors to the detriment of others.
| A verdict was given on trial by jury
but said jury found negatively upon the
special issues submitted TO them; and
| defendants moved the court for iudg-
ment, on the ground that the general
verdict was not supported by the spe-
cial findings. Plaintiff was granted o
new trial, that OF defendant being re-
fused, from which ruling this appeal
was taken. The order granting new
trial is reversed, and the court below
directed to enter Judgment for defend
ants.
John Allen, trustee, etc., respondent,
VS.. r. Williams, appellant This 10 an
action to recover s3,737, alleged to be
due upon deficiency Judgment, in n
foreclosure emit. Both judgment and
order were affirmed.
R. R. barley, appellant, vs. The Ar
rowhead Hot Springs hotel company,
respondent. This is an action to recover
money loaned by plaintiff TO the corpo-
ration, which resulted il Judgment for
defendant. Appellant coRtepded that
he should be granted reversal, on the
grounds that the court erred in submit
ting certain deed as evidence, given by
plaintiff to three other parties, who
were stockholders in the hotel corpora
tion, but the supreme court thought
that the deed aud the evidence explana-
tory of it were admissible. There
being no prejudicisl error shown by the
record, the court affirmed judgment and
order.
The following important minute order
was also received from the supreme
court yesterday:
Minutes department two, San Fran
cisco, Friday, February "a, 1893.
1908. Mccormack va. Sutton ct al.
Judgment and order reversed and
cause remanded for new trial. Me-
Farland, J. Weconcur: De Haven, j.,
Fitzgerald, J.
1906. Boggs vs.. Lordsbury Hotel
company.
1903 Leonis vs. Biscailuz.
1908. Mesnager VS.. Wilson.
19.025. Roebling S. and company Vs.
Bear Valley Irrigation company.
14,903. Security company va. Villa
| malta 8 M cOmpany