The record-union., 1893-05-23
THREE DECISIONS.
One Relating to the Right to Dispose
of a Franchise.
The Judgment in Each Case Reversed
What the Supreme Court Has
to Say About Them.

Decisions of the Supreme Court were
filed yesterday in Deputy Clerk Govan's
office III the following cases:
In the case of Gregory VS.. Blanchard
(appellant), the appeal was from Mono
County. A judgment was rendered
| against the appellant in the Justices
| Court of Bodie Township, in Mono
County, on the 3lst day of December,
1888, and an execution thereon was issued
out OF said court on the 9th of Novem-
Der, 1891. BY virtue ofthis execution the
| Sheriff of Mono County on the 30th of
November, 1891, levied upon ''the fran
chlse to collect toll and all the rights and
privileges hereunder or belonging there
to, of the said ii. G. Blanchard" ;" on a GER
tain toll road, and on the 14th of January,
1872, sold the same to plaintiff, and exc
cuted 10 him certificate of such sale.
Thereupon the plaintiff notified the de-
fendant OF such purchase and demanded
to be let into the possession thereof, and,
upon his refusal, made applica fJn to the
superior Court of Mono County for a
writ OF mandate commanding him "to let
the petitioner, 5. w. Gregory, imme-
dlately into the possession of said fran
chlse, and OF all property necessary for
the exercise Of the powers and the re-
ceipts of the proceeds thereof" After a
hearing upon the application the court
granted the writ, and the defendant ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court.
The decision says: Il. The Superior
Court was not authorized to issue writ
of mandate in aid Of the execution of the
Judgment rendered in the Justices Court.
For the purpose OF complete execution
of Judgment resort should be had to the
court in which the Judgment was rem
dered. Ii tor that purpose it is necessary
to place the purchaser in possession of
the property sold by virtue of the iudg-
ment, as III the case of a purchaser at a
sale under the foreclosure of a mortgage
any writ or process for that purpose must
| be issued by the court in which the action
Is pending. If resort is had to another
tribunal for the purpose of enforcing the
rights acquired by such purchase, it must
re by action in that court, and not by a
summary proceeding.
The purchaser of property at a
Sherltf's sale has no greater right to a
writ OF mandate to compel its delivery by
the Judgment debtor than has purchaser
at any other sale. The plaintiff herein
has no greater right to the writ by reason
OF the fact that. he bought the franchise
at sale under an execution upon the
judgment, than he would have had if he
had bought it at public auction, or upon
direct dealing with the defendant. and
upon demand therefor, had been refused
its possession. The writ is never en-
ployed for the purpose of trying title to
property, whether the property be the
right to land or to an office, or TO a fran
chise.
~. A franchise is merely a privilege.
and is not the subject of sale and trans
fer without the consent of the authority
by which it was granted. The persons
to whom such privileges are granted.
hold them in personal trust, and, there
fore, they cannot be transferred by forced
sale (Munroe VS.. Thomas, Cal. AZ:
Thomas VS.. Armstrong, Cal 2S6), nor
by voluntary assignment, unless by the
permission of the Government, and even
then, if a special mode Of transfer is
pointed out. that mode must be fol-
Iowed.'"
After further defining the nature of a
franchise and citing various decisions.
the Judgment and order Of the lower
court are reversed.
OTHER DECISIONS.
In the case of w. S. Packer ct al. vs..
Phil Doray and others, appellants. the
case is from Sierra County, and is a suit
in which the order appealed from is re-
versed upon an error of the court allow
ing an amendment of the defendants no
tlce OF intention to move for new trial.
In the case of Mudd VS.. Mudd. from
Glenn County, a divorce case, the por-