The herald., 1893-05-19
SUPREME COURT OPINIOJ
A DInECroRs' EaECTfoN THAI
DID ROT STICK.
The Troubles of a San Diego Wood ant
Coal Company-5ndgment Of
firIned In San Auis
Obispo Case.

An opinion by the suprsns court In
the case Of e. G. Dulin, respondent, ys
The Pacific Wood and Coal company
and B. D. Clugston of San Diego. appel
lants, was received yesterday By Deputy
Clerk Sesnon for filing in the Los An,
geles Office.
It was en- appeal from an order OF the
lower court, being motion for stay of
proceedings under the Judgment rem
d~red, and the supreme court denies the
motion.
The facts of the ease were that at q
meeting of the stockholders OF the Pa
cifc Wood and Coal corapany OF San
Diego, held November IL, 1892, for the
election of five directors for the ensuing
year, the appellant, B. ". Clugston, was
delarsd elected one OF the directors.
The respondent, E. g. Dnlin, claimed
that certain votes offered to be cast for
him should have been received, and
that il they had been he would have
been elected instead of Clugston.
December 10th he filed petition in
the superior court OF San Diego county,
praying the court to set aside the cleo
ton and confirm bis election as director.
Jannary 25th OF this year the court gave
Judgment in his favor, directing that
Dulin's election be confirmed. The
Judgment was appealed from and stay
of proceedings asked, and that Dulin be-
restrained from interfering with the
management OF the business.
In their affidavits each party states
that after the election he was elected
president of the company. 1t also APP
peared from the affidavits that after the
Judgment was entered the corporation
brought an action against Clugston for
the purpose of preventing him from
trespassing upon its property and that
By virtue of the processes issued there
in, he was elected from certain premises
belonging to the company, and Dulin
look possession of them, and Dulin WAS
excluded from the management.
The court after discussing the effect OF
the writ of supersedeas asked for in the
case at eome length Gays that the only
effect of the judgment is to leave the
parties in the same situation with refer.
erencs to the rights involved in the ac-
tion as they were prior to its rendition.
In conclusion denying the motion the
court says: "While this proceeding Was
pending in the court below, that court
had no authority by virtue thereof to en-
join Dulin from assuming to act as q
director, and after it had adjudged that
he had been duly elected one CT the
directors, there would have been a man
ifest inconsistency in enioining hin
from acting as such director. The appeal
from that judgment cannot confer upon
Clugston any greater right to an injunc-
tion against Dulin than he had prior to
its rendition. The court limited it's &C.
tion to ascertaining the result of the
election, and did not grant any relief in
the premises other than to confirm the
election OF Dulin, and to declare that
Clugston was not elected. No other pro-
ceedings have been had or attempted in
the Judgment itself does not contemplate
or authorize any other procee dings, or
any process to enforce it.
An opinion was also received affirming
the judgment OF the Ssn Luis Obispo
county superior court eresatiss- non.
suit in the case Of First National bank
of San Luis Obispo, appellant, VS.. l.. Fl.
Simmons and e. NJ. Hall, CO partners,
defendants, and e. M. Hall, respondent.
1t was an action ON promissory note
for $4,000. At the close of the evidence
on the part of the plaintiff the defend
ant, E. M. Hall, moved for non-suit ss
to him, on the ground that the evidence
did not chow that he WAS one OF the
makers of the note, and the court grant
ed the motion. The partnership was
originally between Simmons and Charles
f. Hall. con of e. M. Hall, who, when
dangerously sick, and before his death,
signed bill OF sale of his interest to hie
father with Simmons's consent. The
court, in deciding the case, says:
Assuming, for the purpose OF this ap-
peal, that the evidence tends to prove
transfer of the interest of Charles. f.
Hall TO E. III. Hall, between August 1st
and October Let, 1890, and also that
Simmons accepted E. NJ. Hall az part
ner at the time of the transfer; yet,
these facts alone did not make L. M.
Hall responsible on the note upon which
this action is brought, which bad been
made by the trn1 composed of Simmons
and Charles f. Hall year before 4. NJ.
Hail came into the firm. In order to
make E. NJ. Hall liable on that note it
must have been proved that, in some
way, he assumed the obligation created
by it. OF this, however, there is no evil
dence whsteyer."
The non-suit was properly granted,
and the Judgment is affirmed.