The record-union., 1893-03-09
APPEALED CASES.
Three of Them Settled by the Su-
preme Court,
A Fire Insurance Company On Top-A
Lassen Judgment Reversed
Case From Modoc.

Decisions in several cases were filed by
the Supreme Court in Deputy Clerk Go
vans office yesterday. That of the Be
nicia Agricultural Works (appellant) VS..
the Germania Insurance Company was an
action brought to recover for the loss of
harvesting machine and outfit, insured
by the defendant against loss by fire.
The court below granted a nonsuit and
rendered judgment for defendant. From
the judgment and an order denying
new trial the plaintiff appealed.
The policy was for period of one year,
from June u, 1890, to June u, 1891; but,
after reciting the character of the prop
erty, it contained the following clause:
"All the while owned by assured, and
known as the Harvest King Harvesting
Machine and outfit, and operating in the
grain fields and in transit from place to
place, in connection with harvesting in
Fresno County, Cal"
1T appears" says the Supreme Court,
''that the harvesting season in Fresno
County usually ends about the lst
of September; that in 1890 it was
somewhat longer than usual; that
the insured appel. ants assignor)
finished harvesting that year in Sep
tember, or about the lst of October;
that he then took the machine home to
his ranch having entirely finished using
it in the business of harvesting for that
year; that he separated the header from
the balance of the machine, so that the
whole machinery could be more readily
placed in his shed; that he was pre-
vented by other work from putting ii in
his she'd and that it remained near his
shed until the 18th of the following No
| vember, at which time 1t was destroyed
by fire.
at is clear, therefore, that it was not
burned while operating in the grain
| fields or in transit from place TO place in
connection with harvesting in Fresno
| County,"
After giving reasons in detail the court
affirms the judgment and order.
A LAssEN WATER CASE.
The case of Matthew Healy, plaintiff
.and appellant, VS.. B. c. Woodruff ct al,
was an action brought TO quiet PLAINTIFF $
| title to certain waters of a stream called
! Cedar Creek, and to ditch leading there
| from, and for an injunction, etc. The
court rendered judgment for plaintiff
against the defendants, Harrison Smith
and Edward Bonyman, as prayed for in
the complaint; but, as against the defend
ants James and John A. Smith and B. c..
| Woodruff, the judgment quieted plaint-
ifs title to only $50 inches, measured un-
! der lOur-1ncl pressure.
Plaintiff appealed from the judgment,
and contends that the courts conclusions
of law were erroneous, and that his title
should have been quieted to 800 inches.
After reviewing the case at great length,
the judgment as to the latter respondents
and defendants is reversed, with direc-
tions to the Superior Court to amend its
conclusions OF law.
A CASE FROM MoDoC.
In the case of 7. NJ. Harvey, an insol-
vent debtor, VS.. George Champlin, ap-
pellant, the appeal was from two orders
made in the proceedings in the matter ol
the insolvency of I. NJ. Harvey. By one
order the court refused to allow two
claims presented by the appellant against
the estate of the insolvent. By the other
it settled the final account of the assignee
and distributed the proceeds of the estate
| without considering the objections of the
appellant to the account or the proposed
order.
AS appellant had no interest in the in
solvents estate after his two claims were
rejected, it is obvious that if the first or
der was correctly made, appellant was
not injured by the second.
The orders of the lower court are
affirmed.