The herald., 1893-01-24
SUPREME COURT DEC|S|OtS,
The Famous Case of Tuffree
VS.. Brock Decided.
The Lower Courts Judgment Af-
firmed in a Contract.
Four Decisions Received from the
Stale Court of Last Resort
Which Are of General
Interest.

Deputy Supreme Court Clerk Ash
more yesterday received several opin-
ions from the supreme court in which
decisions have Just been rendered.
The court affirms the judgement of the
superior court denying motion for a
new trial in the case of V. L. Elbert, re-
spondent, VS.. the Los Angeles gas COM
pany, appellant, the language OF the
opinion being as follows:
"This is an action to recover damages
for the breach by defendant of an alleged
contract by which defendant agreed to
employ plaintiff as its superintendent
for term of two years. Judgment went
for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
The main points made by appellant
may be condensed into the statement
that the evidence does not show any
contract such as is averred IN
the complaint and found by
the court; and that, at least,
it does not show contract in writing
within the meaning OF the statute of
frauds. We, however, do not think that
appellants position is tenable. 1t ap-
pears beyond dispute from the evidence
that in November, 1888, certain letters
and kilograms passed between q. ii.
Simpkins, who was then president of
the defendant "a corporation) and the
respondent concerning the employment
of the latter.
At that time Simpkins was in Los An
geles, California, which was the princl
pal place of business Of the defendant.
Respondent Was at Minneapolis, in the
state of Minnesota.
1t appears further beyond doubt that,
in pursuance of said correspondence,
the respondent left his employment at
Minneapolis. came to Los Angeles, en-
tered upon the duties of the Office OF sup
erintendent of appellant, performed said
duties continuously for more than
year and received his salary from de-
fendant in the amount stated in the cor
respondence. 1t appears, further, that
| shortly after the expiration of the first
year the appellant, through its then
president, w B. Cline, without cause,
discharged respondent, and refused to
accept further services, or to pay for the
same, the only cause being that appel
| liant desired to go out of business.
| Now, with respect to tina question
whether or not the letters and kilograms
for two years at certain stipulated
price WAS made, we deem it enough to
cay that we think said evidence was
sufficient to show said facts.
We think, also. that it clearly ap-
pears that respondent was employed by
appellant, and not by Simpkins person
ally. We do not think that the court
erred in sustaining an objection to
question put to respondent by which he
wac asked ii he had tried to get employ
ment in kind of business different
from that for which he was employed
by appellant! 9e
The exception to the ruling OF the
court touching certain personal ex-
penses of respondent is of no conse
quence, as in the findings and judgment
no such expenses are allowed. Tnere
are no other points necessary to be no.
ticed. The judgment and order denying
a new trial are affirmed. cr
The court in short opinion affirms
the judgment of the lower court in the
case of the First Nationsl bank OF Santa
Monica. rss ,ondent, Vs. II 1 Kowalsky,
defendant, and E HI Kowalskv and A.
f. Ball, appellants. the following being
the points OF the decision:
On January 26, 1891, plaintiff OBJ
tanned judgment in the superior court
of Los Angeles county against defendant
H. Kowasky for the sum of Sl2S4 70,
from which he appealed.to the supreme
court, filing an undertaking in the sum
of $4,000 signed by appellants as cure
ties. On October II, 1891, the supreme
court dismissed the appeal, and the re-
nlittitur wac filed in the superior court
| November 13, 1891. January 13 1892
plaintiff attorney moved the superior
court for Judgment against the sureties
on the undertaking for the amount of
the judgment against H. l. kowalsky,
which was accordingly rendered.
The judgment thus rendered recited,
among other things. that it came up
regularly to be heard upon the affidavit
of E. j. Vawter, but no copy of this affi
davit appears in the transcript, and the
omission of it is not accounted for. The
sureties appeal from the judgment
against them, and contend that there is
nothing in the record here to show that
the conditions Of ths obligations had not
been fulfilled. The court, however, dis
missed this point very summarily, hold
it to be without merit.
Appellants make the further point
that the judgment il against 'Kowalsky
and Bell" and not Bali; but the court
holds this to be merely a clerical error,
which should have been corrected by
the court below on notice of any party
to the judgment The cause is therefore
remanded by the supreme C ,urt, with
directions to the superior court to cor
rect the error in the judgment by sub
stituting the name A. Everett Ball foi
that OF A. Everett Bell, and that as cor
rected the judgment is affirmed, anG
that appellant pay the costs of the ap
peal.
The supreme court also affirms the
judgment of the superior court in the
celebrated case OF J K. Tuffree, appel
liant, We Alvan Brock, ct al, respond
ents, which involved valuable real estate
at San Pedro
In the course of the opinion the court
says that the plaintiff brought this &C.
ton to obtain decree declaring that
the defendant corporations hold the title
70 certain lands situated in Los Angeles
county and spoken of as Timms' Point
in trust for him.
1t is alleged in the complaint that OF
and before June 8, 1887, A. W. TimmE
owned the lands in controversy, in fee
and that shortly before that date, plain
tiff being desirous of purchasing tn,
lands. employed Brock as his agent, pay
ing him his expenses in advance, ans
sent him to San Pedro to effect the pur
chase Rrock ae auch agent conau m