The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-03
Supreme Court oplniens

Two supreme court opinions were re-
ceiver at the Office Of the clerk in this
city yesterday for fling.
The first was that of A. P. Yearsley,
plaintiff and appellant, vs.. the Sunset
Telephone and Telegraph company, de-
PENDANT and respondent. The opinion is
written BY Justice aroutte, concurred IN
bv Justice Harrison and Van Fleet. and
afnTms the judgment and order OF the
lower court. Plaintiff brought an sction
aeinst the defendant to recover damages
for personal injuries received while in It's
employ. He was non-suitad, moved for
a new trial. and now appeals from the
Judgment ana also from the order deny
ing his action. Plaintiff was ineman
of defendant telephone company, and US
such was ordered to string line Ut wire
upon cetrain telephone poles. A pepper
tree, situated upon private land and be-
tween two Of the poles, was to some ex.
tent an obstruction in strine,ng the wire.
Therepuon plaintiff climbed the tree, anu
" hile engaged in arranging the wire, the
limb on which he WAS standing gave way
and ne was precIpirated to the ground
With serious injury to himself. Tue
was r-opsrly granted, as We fail to dis
cover by the record any negligence on the
Part OF defendant. Appellants argu.
meut goes to the extent that defendant
was guilty OF negligence in furnishing de.
fpctive appliance for the stringing of the
wires. But it cannot be claimed that the
pepper tree was en- appliance furnishej
by defendant. 1t therefore belonged to a
stanser and was on private property.
Even conceding it was an appliances. and
O defective one, 1t was one of plaintiff s
own choosing, and he must bear the
burden resulting from a bad exercise of
judgment on his part. -. He stands
in the same position as though he had
CHOSEN for his use frail PLANK or rick.
ETY. LADDER, rather than pepper tree"
The second opinion is that in the case of
VIM. A. Witte, plaintiff and appellant. vs..
X. b, Taylor, defendant and respondent.
Tho opinion is written by Justice Ca
route, CONQUERED in by Justices Harrison
and Van Fleet, and affirms the Judgment
of the lower court. This is an action to
recover com missions for the sala Of GER
tain real estate. A general demurrer wes
sustained to the complaint, and plaintiff
appeals from the judgments rendered
therein. The action 10 based upon a
clause in a written contract entered into
between plaintiff and defendant, in which
it is set forth tuat it is further unuer-
StOOQ anu dSIccu tuot WAOh .ooiu
can secure from Piez James of Anahsim
u deed conveying to said Taylor the I'M
divided one-haIf interest in said ranch
now owned by said Plez James, in said
Nevada ranch, then said Taylor will pay
said White the sum Of $1,000 as commits
81 on on said purch ase and sale from said
James; and said Taylor agrees that he
will purchase said lots in East Riverside
and Hastings from said Witte for the
sum OF $1,000. the SAID purchase from the
said James to be at terms satisfactory to
said Taylor, and the said sums of $1,000
as com mission and $1,000 for lots to be due
and payable a, any time after six months
from date and delivery of deed from said
Plez James for said one-half interest in
said ranch to said Taylor" The COM
plant sat forsh the contract and alleges
that plaintiff used his best effort to effect
the sale. He only succeeded in obtain
ing from James an offer to sell said nm
divided half of the ranch to defendant,
but defendant refused to purchase, an d
thereafter bought an undivided one-third
from James upon terms satisfactory to
himself. The complaint pYays for judg-
ment for the sum of $1333.33. that sum
being a proportionate amount of the
agreed compensation OF $1,000. The.court
ssy that the com plant fails to state q
cause for action; that it proceeds on the
theory that the contract is separable; this
is not provided for IN the CONTRACT, and
tho court holds shat it must stand or IalI
az whole.