The herald., 1893-10-01
SEVERAL CASES DECIDED
A RAILROAD CASE REVERSED BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
Three Convicts Fail to Get New Trials
From the Supreme Court Grow
ing Crops Legally Defined by
Judge Shaw.

Inc supreme court mas Oeclded the
case Of Smith, appellant, vs. Los Angeles
and Pacific railroad company, respond
ent, reversing the order of the superior
court in the case. The opinion was re-
ceived for filing yesterday by Mr.. Ses-
non, deputy clerk.
A receiver was appointed in the case
of the California bank VS.. Los Angeles
and Pacific Railroad company, Septem-
ber 13, 1889. On October 26, 1891, the
plaintiff in the present case filed petit
ton of intervention in that action,
setting forth that he had obtained a
judgment against the railroad for
$4403 80 October 2. 1891, and that no
part of it had been paid. He prayed
that his claim might be allowed against
the railroad and that certain land be-
longing to it be sold and the proceeds
applied to the payment of its debts.
On July IL, 1892, he applied to the
court for an order dischsrging the re.
ceiver, on the ground that the order
appointing him was void. The appli-
cation was denied, and he applied to
the supreme court for review of the
proceedings. A hearing was had and
Judgment was entered denying the petit
tion. Subsequently the plaintiff sp-
piled in this action to the superior court
for an order directing the sheriff to levy
upon sufficient property in the hands of
the receiver to satisfy his Judgment.
The motion was denied and the appeal
was taken from this order. The su-
preme court in discussing the case says
that inasmuch as it appears that the
plaintiff ip the action in which receiv-
er wsE appoihted cannot avail itself of
the sefylees of the receiver, to hold that
the plaintiff in the case is not entitled
to execution would be to decide that he
has no, emedy whatever for the enforce
ment OF his Judgment, and the Califor-
mia bank, after practically abandoning
its action ought not to be permitted to
put the creditors in such position that
they can obtain no relief, either through
the receiver or by the ordinary processes
of law. The order is therefore reversed.
TWO JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
The supreme court also, in the arson
case OF R. Daniels, affirms the Judgment
of the superior court denying a new
trial. The defendant was convicted of
arson In the second degree. The only
grounds urged for reversal were that
the court erred in giving the jury por-
tions Of two instructions asked by the
people, and in it's rulings upon the sd-
instability of certain evidence. The
court fails to find any material errors.
In the case of Louis Etting and Burt
Hadley, an appeal WAS taken from the
judgment and order denying new trisl.
They were convicted of robbing an old
Frenchman named Boron. Errors were
charged In instructions given to the
jury and errors of law. The court holds
there were no material errors and
sffirms the Judgment.
GROWING CROPS DEFINED.
Judge Shaw yesterday overruled
demurrer to the complaint in the case of
Mcguire vs.. Gibson. The question
argued in the caee was whether or not
the term growing crops" in section
2955 of the civil code, prescribing what
classes of personal property may be
mortgaged, includes young orange trees
growing in nursery and there kept for
esle for transplanting. Judge Shaw in
short opinion says that the question
has never been decided by the supreme
court, and that no other state has a
similar statute concerning chattel mort
cages. He rules that the liberal con-
struction OF the words is more in &C.
cordance with common sense, and
therefore oyerrules the demurrer.
DEMURRER ovERRULED.
Judge Shaw also overruled demurrer
to tie complaint in the case of. G.
Wallace vs.. the Los Angeles National
bank. The complaint showed that the
plaintiff was the owner of the lands de-
scribed and entitled to their possession
that the defendants have since July /.
1892, against the will OF the plaintiff,
kept and maintained on the premises
lot of growing nursery stock and ex-
cluded the plaintiff from the land, and
forcibly withheld possession, and that
he has been damaged $4,000. The
court thinks these facts sufficient to en-
title the plaintiff to recover, and there.
fore overrules the demurrer. i