The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-09-07
THE RIGHT OF WAY FORFEITED.
Supreme court and the Los An.
gels and Pacific Case.
1t AiIirms the Decision of the Supe-
ri0r Court.
4 Santa barbara VIII Casa aud Cthor
Cases Passed Upon by the
State Tribunal of Last
Resort.

judgment Oh inc LOS angeles superior
court in the case OF John P. Jones OF AL,
respondents, We. the Los Angeles and
Pacific Railway company, appellant.
The action was brought by plaintiffs
to declare forfeited certain right Of
way granted by them to the Los Angeles
County Railway company, the predeces-
cor in inherent OF the defendant, upon
the ground that certain condit ious sub
ssquently attached to the grant had not
been com piled with. d efendant inter.
posed general demurrer to the CON-
plant, which WAS ovsrfuled by consent.
The defendant did not appear at the
trial, and plaintiffs had Judgment.
The only question presented by The
appellants was aa 10 the sufii cheney of
the complaint.
Tbs supreme court says: 1.-THE COM
| plant is not we'll drawn, but In the abb
sence of a special demurrer We think ii
sufficient to state a cause of action.
| Taking it5 allegations together, it may
be fairly construed as alleging the COM
pletion of the road, and ASSUMING that
TACT to be sufficiently stated, ito remain
ing allegations are sufficiently stated in
charging breaches of various conditions
OF the agreement heretofore quoted.
The Judgment is therefore affirmed"
An opinion by the supreme court was
alao received in Los Angeles for fling
yesterday in the case OF Joseph Horton,
administrator OF the estate of James A.
Brown. deceased, appellant, Va. h. E.
Jack ct al, respondents.
1t WAS Santa Barbara will case.
James A. Brown died at Santa Barbara
October 20, 1889, leaving his widow.
Mrs. Catherine J. Brown, as his ex-
ecutrix.
He left will which was admitted to
probate. and Mrs. Brown took 'posses-
sion OF hls property as executrx.
1t was alleged that April is. 1890,
when so lawfully possessed, the de-
PENDANTS wronefully took the entire per-
sonal property Of the estate, valued
then ct $4,000, and converted it 10 their
own use, paying it to bank she owed,
OF which JACK WAS president. Mrs.
Brown died April Ia, 1892, not having
completed the administration.
The cause Was tried by the court
without jury and judgment was found
for the defendant Jack, non-suit being
entered as TO the bank.
The supreme count after long dis
euseion Of the case holds that the lower
court erred in holding that Jack did not
convert the property to his own use;
that this cause OF action was not barred.
The judgment of non-suit ia affirmed
and the judgment in favor of Jack is
reversed.
The judgment of the San Diego su-
perier courS is affirmed in the case OF II.
G. Dow, plaintiff and appellant, We.
Arthur G Macon. ct al, defendants and
respondents. The'court Gays thst the
pleadings, findings and briefs do not
present the facts with remarkable clear.
ness. 1t appeared. however, that q
$4,000 note made by Arthur g. Mason to
II. w. Mason, which was the gu bjsct OF
the action, was pledged as security for
the payment OF certain other promiasory
notes and the pivotal point in the case
was whether or not these last notes had
been paid. The lower court found they
were not paid and while the evidence
on the point, according to the supreme
court, left the matter in doubt, they hold
it was not 80 weak as to warrant it in.
saying 1t does not support the finding.
This being so it holds there is no ground
for disturbing the Judgment.
In the case OF Flora j. Padep, re-
spondent, vs.. Simon Goldbaum and q.
+. Hubert, appellants, the supreme
court suetains the judgment OF the San
Diego superior court. The complaint
alleges that the plaintiff, wife OF Alfred
Paden, owned certain milch cows and
other cattle and personal property, and
defendants, knowing it to be her per-
aonal property. took it under writ OF
execution issued upon judgment in
favor OF Alfred Paden.
Findings were for tho plaintiff and
Judgment was entered against both de-
PENDANTS for $l160 Ia concluding long
opinion in the case the supreme court
eays that appellants specified 90 errors
of law as having occurred on the trial,
that they have carefully read tho entire
record and find no error iustiiying q re-
yersa.
The supreme court reverses the judg-
ment OF the San Diego superior court in
the cass of w. e Bsiues vs.. BabcJck &
Story, appellants, West Ooaet Lum Der
company and @. j. Fox, intervenors and
respondents. and remands the case for q
new trial.
The controversy was solely between
the alleged intervenors and two OF the
defendants in the action as origin ally
commenced, which was in the nature of
a creditors bill in equity to subject
equitable assets of the San Diego Street
Oar company to the satisfaction OF q
Judgment against it in favor OF the
plaintiff.
Judg ment went for the plaintiff and
an appeal was taken and the supreme
court affirmed the decision. 1t ssys,
however, that no question relating to
the rights OF other creditors we're in
volved in that appeal, or con sidered by
the court.
Suit in Intervention followed and
Judgment wss granted in favor OF the
intervenofs, from which the present ap.
peal was taken.
An opinion was also received in the
Los Angeles case OF Ellen D. RAYMOND,
plaintiff and Respondent, We. Geo. W.
Glover ct al. defendants and respond
enfe, and German American Savings
sang, defendant and appellant. The
COAT finds in this case, which was q
mortgage transaction, as folIows: "As
there is no fndlng upon the QUESTION
raised as 60 - good faith and want of
notice OF ghe Il ak, the cnss should be
remandod wth directions to find out
whether or not the bank took the note
as security. without notice OF the facts
tending tshow rs invalidity. This fact
may be lolnd upon the evidence already
taken, with euch luther evidence upon
the subject IA tbs vArties may zee fit to