The herald., 1893-10-10
SUPREME COURT OPINION Mill.
EIaveu Decisions of Interest to
This Section Received.
Imuortant Ruling Concerning the
Liability Of stockholders.
,.windy" Smiths Deal with the Board
of supervisors Finally knocked Out.
yda Adds storke Alimony Suit.
Othor Decisions.

Elsven opinions by the supreme
court were received yesterday by Dep
utv cClerk Sesnon, for filing, which is
The largest number of decisions ever
sent out by the court in one batch.
The well-remembered case brought
bv Aaron Smith against Los Angeles
county in an endeavor to force the
county to pay him for alleged assistance
in disposing OF court house bonds, was
finally decided, the decision being in
favor OF the county.
The board OF supervisors after an
election authorized the issuance of
$500 600 worth of per cent bonds for
the erection of the new court house.
They we're delivered to the county
treasurer, and bids for their sale were
advertised for.
Aaron Smith claimed that no bona
fide bid had been made for any of the
bonds, and no sale could be made until
he procured bid for ITO OF the bonds.
He claimed to have been employed for
the purpose by the supervisors.
IQ0 Dlu MAS hCCopbOus bho Wclo
sold and the purchase price paid. Smith
claimed that the supervisors agreed to
nav him for his services what they were
reasonably worth, and he put in a de-
mand for $4,000, which was wholly
rejected. The complaint was demurred
to and the demurrer sustained, The
plaintiff refusing to amend, Judgment
went for the county and an appeal was
taken.
The supreme court says that the ques.
tion to be determined involves the power
OF the board of supervisors to make the
contract on which the action wac based.
After quoting the statutes applicable the
court says that they confer no express
power on the board to make such con-
tract, and unless subdivision 80 dissection
rs of the county government act, which
gives boards of supervisors power TO do
all other acts required and not enumer-
ated in the act gave them the authority,
the contract was void, because not in
pursuance of law.
As the act distinctly enumerated the
acts the board is required to perform
with reference to the issuance and dis
posal of county bonds, and as the en-
ployment of procurer of bids for such
bonds is not in any way necessary to tine
ity of the county government, no such
implied authority to make such con-
tract was conferred as ontended for.
The power to sell or negotiate the sale
OF county bonds is expressly conferred
on the county treasurer and not on the
supervisors, and the making OF such a
contract was an unwarranted interfer-
ence with the power and duties OF the
county treasurer. The court therefore
declares the employment of Aaron Smith
by the supervisors was void act, and
the Judgment of the superior court 10
alfirl.@d.
E yDA Adds sToRKE CASE.
The anpreme court also affirms the
Judgment Of the Santa Barbara superior
court in the case of Yda Adds Storke
plaintiff, and respondent @. A. Storke,
defendant and appellant. s
Mrs. Storke brought an action against
her husband for permanent support and
maintenance. August 18th, 1891, the
trial court made an order that during
the pendency OF the action the defend
ant pay Mrs. Storke $50 a month ali
mony and $50 to her attorney. From
this order on the day it was made the
defendant appealed.
He filed an answer averring the in
sanity of his wife, and asked that
guardian ad litem for her be appointed;
and the point made by the appellant
was that the court had no right to allow
alimony until it had heard and deter
mined the issue OF insanity. Sl ssI t a
The supreme court rules that If the
court were compelled to try and deter
mine the Issues in the case before it
could allow alimony, the entire purpose
Of allowing alimony during the pen
dency OF euch an action would be de-
feated, and affirms the judgment. 1t
grsnts q modification OF the order for
counsel fees, directing the $50 to be paid
TO plaintiff instead OF her attorney, as
the order was entered.
THE INTEREST KNOCKED OFF.
The supreme court grants modifica-
tion of the judgment in the case of
Harralson, respondent, vs. A. W. Barrett
and j. +. Yoakum, appellants.4 The
mortgage upon which the action was
brought provided that in case OF fore
closure the mortgage might include
therein all payments made by the
MORTGAGE for taxes on the premises,
and the taxes on the mortgage or the
money thereby secured. 1t was claimed
by the appellants that this provision
OF the mortgage was void, and that the
superior court OF Los Angeles county
erred in allowing interest on the note
for the payment of which the mortgage
was given as security, and the supreme
court sustains this proposition, in ac-
cordance with the provision OF section 8,
article 13 OF the constitution, which de-
clarea such clauses null and void.
The court says that the respondent
suggested that the decree should not be
reversed, but simply modified, in case
Che court should hold that the plaintiff
was not entitled to enforce the stipula-
tion as to interest. The court grants
this and Gays that the findings show
that the amount allowed plaintiff by the
decree should be reduced by the sum OF
$S83.63, that being the amount OF in
terest improperly allowed by the court
below. The cause is remanded with in
Htructions to 80 modify the decree.
A DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
Judgment was affirmed by department
two OF the superior court in the case OF
John Maskell, appellant, VS.. Charles H.
Barber, respondent. 1t was an appeal
from a judgment sustaining demurrer
to che complaint. The action was one
foridamages. 1t was alleged that the
defendant maliciously and without
probable cause sued out writ of at