The herald., 1893-10-10
iorm the acts necessary to constitute a

levy.
The court sustained the demurrer and
the supreme court holds that it was
properly sustained. 1t ia understood
that petition Tor rehearing by the
court In bank will be made at once bv
the appellant.
THEY WERE TRADE FIXTURES.
In the case OF the Security Loan and
trust company, respondent, vs. the Will
lamette Steam Mills Lumber and Mil
ing company ct al, appellants, the su-
preme court reverses the Judgment OF
tne superior court OF Los Angeles county.
he action was brought by the plain
III 10 recover damages alleged to have
been sustained by the entry OF defend
ants upon its lot and forcibly removing
therefrom certain house, foundations
and bridges which it was alleged were
attached to the freehold. The defendants
admitted the removal of the property
but averred their right to do SO on the
ground that they were trade fixtures
erected by the defendant during it's
occupancy OF the premises as tenants
under lease from plaintiffs, and that
the removal was made before the termi-
nation OF its tenancy. The caee was
tried without Jury and Judgment went
for the plaintiff and against the defend.
ant corporation alone, and new trial
was denied.
The question to be decided, says the
supreme court, was whether the build
ing and bridges were erected for the
| nnTpnaQo n to ,1ood
cessory to carrying on its business a5 O
lumber dealer. II go, then they were
trade fixtures and as such removable.
The court below erred in striking out
testimony showing the facts, and the
judgment is reversed.
NEW TRIAL GRANTED.
The case of Alfred Moore, appellant,
vs. S. II. Mott and w. O. Furrey, re
spondents, was also decided. 1t was
an action upon an undertaking given to
procure the release OF property from
attachment, The writ was issued in an
action brought by Alfred Moore sgainet
one Dorward. for whom they were sure
ties. The value OF the property attached
was fixed at $1,000. 1t was averred in
4 the present case that the plaintiff, Mo-
J vember s, 1885, recovered judgment
against Dorwafd in the attachment euit
| for $S3l.6 The defendants alleged
that judgment went for Dorward in
stead of Moore, and Dorward recovered
! his costs, which were paid by Moore,
and that therefore,the defendants were
discharged from the undertaking. The
supreme court grants new trial in the
case, reversing the judgment OF the
/ lower court.
/ LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS,
A very important decision was rem
dered by department two, affecting the
] liability of stockholders in corporations,
in which rehearing will undoubtedly
| be applied for. 1t was id the case OF
John w. Hunt, plaintiff and respondent,
VS.. Edwin Ward. defendant and APP
pellant.
The action was brought to recover
from the defendant his proportionate
share of the alleged indebtedness OF a
corporation in which he was a stock
holder. Judgment went for the plsin-
tiff, from which and an order denying q
new trial, the defendant appealed.
1t was averred in the complaint that
February 20, 1888, the Exchange Block
company made and delivered to Hunt
it's promissory note for $500, payable
one year after date with II per cent. per
annum interest," and, executed mort
gage on certain corporate property t.
secure the notes that afterwards Hunt
foreclosed the mortgage, and after the
sale of the mortgaged premises
there was a deficiency of $329l. 30
which is. lunatisied I; that during
the time Ward owned such number
Of shafesaa Iwonid MAX e hisp preparation
ate ehareoin ntheo den ciency judgment
$S27. so, for which, judgment was prayed
| in the present aetion and granted.niT The
action wac mot lbegufS within three years
from the date Of ith9saote.aeya CO 9e
The supfemea COURT after quite q
lengthy discussion of the liability Of
stockholders, says in deciding thisicase !:
mo cases have been cited where the
point here involved was before the
court. The case nearest in point is that
OF Redington We. Cornwell, 90 Cal. 63
where the corporation had given its
promissory note in consideration of q
mutual open account. and the court, in
considering the application of the stat
ute OF limitation to stockholders, used
this language: The averment as to the
mutual account, in the third amended
complaint, is of doubtful sutiiciencv
to extend the period of limitation,
even against the corporation. As to
stockholders, it can have no effect what
ever, even though sufficiently alleged.
| The corporation had no more power to
extend the period of limitation as
against the stockholders by a mutual
open account than by making it's prom
issory note. The liability of the stock
holders is created and exists by statute.
1t arises when a debt is contracted by
the corporation. 1t is limited to three
! years from the time it arises, and it is
| we'll settled in this state that the cor
porstion has no power to extend that
limitation without direct authority from
the stockholders. es2sE
"As the foregoing views are determin-
ative OF the case in favor OF the appel
liant, it is not necessary to discuss the
| admissibility OF evidence OF the judg-
ment against the corporation, or any OF
the other questions argued by counsel.
The judgment and order appealed from
are reversed and the cause remanded." ("
The opinion was by Justice McFar-
land, Justices DeHaven and Fitzgerald
concurring. The case was tried by
Judge Van Dyke in department four OF
the superior court, similar ruling
having formerly been made by Judge
Wade.
OTHER OPINIONS
were received as follows:
The Decamp Lumber company, re-