The herald., 1895-03-12
Vernon irrigation Company Sc
cures a New Trial
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Mrs. Bakers Damage Suit Against the
Southern California
An Opinion Respecting the Appointment Of q
Receiver to the Los Angeles and
Pacific Railway

Seven Supreme Court decisions were re-
ceived yesterday by Deputy Supreme
Clerk Woodbury. for filing.
An exceedingly important decision rem
dered by the Supreme Court in bank is
that OF the Vernon Irrigation Company,
appellant, against the city of Los An
geles, H. W. Ames and others, respond
ents, which virtually decides that the
city has right to sufficient of the water
OF Los Angeles River to supply the needs
of the municipality, but that it has no
right to water for the supply OF outside
lands.
The Vernon Irrigation Company
brought the suit to enjoin the city from
diverting the water of the river, on the
ground that the company the owner of a
tract riparian to the stream, and entitled
to have the water flow as it used to. The
city claimed not only the right to divert
it to the extent of 800 miners inches for
municipal and private purposes, but that
it was entitled to sell it to owners of non
riparian lands outside of the city.
The Vernon Association showed also
that it owned ditch and water right
for 200 inches OF water, acquired by APP
preparation, from the Los Angeles river,
the point Of division being at the Riparian
lands of the company. The city threat
ened to take all the water which would
have deprived Vernon altogether and then
the plaintiff prayed for an injunction.
The Los Angeles municipality then put
in the claim that it's rights were estab-
lished as successors OF the pueblo of Los
Angeles which, it commended, owned all
the waters i'll the river and in the Sec
ond place because it had had the undis-
turbed and undisputed use OF it, under
claim of right, for fifty years. 1t ma n
tanned, further that under the laws of
Mexico the pueblo had the power to dis
tribute the water for the benefit of all the
lands then claimed by the pueblo, and
that the city had succeeded to that right.
Also that the outside lands to which it
now conducts water were within the linn
its formerly claimed by the pueblo. Fol,
number OF reasons set forth in vol
luminous and searching opinion, Justice
Garoutte thinks that some of the material
findings are not sustained by the evidence
and that the judgment is not justified by
the finding and recommends new trial.
The judgment Of the Superior Court in
the case OF j. G. Wickersham VS.. Jas S.
Crittenden who appealed it, was affirmed.
1t was an action brought by stakeholder
OF the Bank of San Luis Obispo for him.
self and other stockholders to compel the
defendant, who was its president to ac-
count for all moneys received by him for
salary above the sum OF $500 monthly. 1t
was proven that the increase of salary of
the president depended on and was ac-
complished by his own vote as trustee.
The court held that the right of Critten-
den to Withdraw increased sums of the
banks money as compensation for his
services as president was not increased by
his causing to be spread upon the min
utes resolution that he might receive
that amount as his salary.
The SupariOr Court a if o6 tho indo-
ment of the San Luis Obspo Superior
Court in another case of the same parties,
which have judgment for plaintiff for
$4,000 paid by Crittenden to Graves &
Graves as attorney fees in certain action
at one time, but awarded judgment to
defendant for $5l2.50 paid the attorneys at
another time. The Supreme Court held
that when the $1,000 was paid, at time
when Crittenden was president of the
bank, it was to defend action in which
Wickersham and Crittenden were the only
real parties in interest contesting for the
bank, the latter having no real interest in
the fight.
In the case of Arcadia B. de Baker,
plaintiff and respondent, against the
Southern California Railway Company,
defendant and appellant, the Judgment of
the Superior Court OF Los Angeles was
reversed and the cause remanded for
further proceedings. 1t was an action
on the western bank of the river, below
First street, and which it is alleged was
the cause that the lands of the plaintiff
we're damaged and washed away during
the flood of 1890. She obtained a judg-
ment in the Superior Court, which was
other things said in the opinion, it is
stated that there was no taking OF the
plaintiffs property in this case neither
was the damage to it the natural, certain
and immediate consequence of the build
ing of the levee.
Writs of prohibition were denied in.the
cases OF Lewis A. Grant, petitioner,
respondent, and the California Bank,
petitioner against the Superior Court of
Los Angeles. The Superior Court of this
county had appointed Herman Silver re-
ceiver of the Los Angeles & Pacific Rail-
way company, and while the order was
void for excess OF jurisdiction, the court
nevertheless made several orders awarding
him compensation for such services
Recently the California Bank and Lewis
A. Grant were cited to show cause why
further compensation should not be given
Silver for period of time not covered by
the previous orders. The writs of pro-
hibition are denied by the Supreme Court
because the remedy of petitioners is an
appeal
The appeal OF the Pacific Mutual Life
Insurance Company against John G.
Fisher ct al. and j. W. Reid ct al, case
from San Diego, is dismissed.
The Judgment is affirmed in the action
OF W. r. Randolph against s. and d. j.
kraemer, appellants. 1t was an action for
damages because the defendants had re-
fused to enter a certificate of discharge of
mortgage, in compliance with Section 2491
OF the Civil Coie, after the mortgage on
certain land had been satisfied.
The Superior Court of San Diego is d.
rected in the case Of the Pacific Mutual
Life Insurance Company of California,
plaintiff and appellant against John G.
Fisher ct al. defendants, and Losman &
Lands ct al. respondents, to modify it's
Judgment by substituting the sum OF $52
instead of $l12.30 in the amount of money
due Defendant Heath, and as modified
the Judgment stands affirmed. 1t was an
appeal from judgment in foreclosure
OF MORTGAGE action against the San Diego
Opera House Company for $74,9O5 and
several lien claimants for $50, 600, in which
the conrt ordered the sale of plaintiffs