The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-13

the famous mining case it will be
necessary to assess the stock. A. B.
Thompson, secretary of the company, is
authority for this statement.
The assessment, under certain conditions,
will prove disastrous to the stockholders.
If the assessment is made before the judg-
ment is paid great deal of the stock will
go back to the company. because of the in
ability of the stockholders to meet the
assessment, but if an assessment Is made
after the judgment is paid the stockholders
will have realized something on their stock
as their share of the judgment, and they
will then be in condition to put up assess
ments.
There is now on hand something
like $4,000 to run the mine for the next
few weeks, and the ore that they are
now working is good. 1t is said that
there will be no immediate necessity
of an assessment if the mine is well
worked, but the appeals being taken by the
defendants indicate that little time is re-
quired to do something, half of which to
mortals has never been told. If an assess
ment is levied, and a great deal of the
! stock is called in, the defendants can take
advantage of an old custom, and pay the
debts of the left hand with the right hand
| 1t will be seen that delay in the execu-
ton of judgment might be good thing
for the defendants, providing an assess
ment can be levied in the meantime.
The delay and the manner OF accomplish
ing it might be termed by the Supreme
Court as frivolous appeal, and the de-
| PENDANTS will necessarily suffer If the court
| so decides. The custom on that point is
not generally known to laymen, but when
the Supreme Court renders judgment and
| directs the lower court to enter it for
| OF nf ia
| entered, it is to all intents and purposes
| Judgment OF the Supreme Court; but as a
! question may arise as to whether or not
| Judgment has been entered by the Superior
Court, and in order to prevent injury being
done defendants, the law allows them to
! appeal from the record on the ground that
it is not the Judgment entered by the
! Supreme Court, and If the Supreme Court
finds that it is, and that the records are
| similar, then it is at liberty to decide
that it is a frivolous appeal. and it
allows the plaintiff damages in whatever
amount it may think just.
Another matter of considerable interest
is the movement that Attorney Baggett is
preparing to make. He has reached the
conclusion that the sureties on the Hale IL
| Norcross bond are insufficient.
II will shortly give notice." said Mr..
| Baggett yesterday, that we object to the
sufficiency of the surety on the appeal
L
| Will demand that these sureties, w. j.
Dingee of Oakland and Walter S. Hobart
of this City, justify according to law.
MIR. Dingee is connected with the Oak
land Water Company and is associated
with Alvinza Hayward. He is supposed
to have what money he has in this enter
prise. The value of the institution is ques-
toned as a very bitter fight has been car
ried on between the Contra Costa Water
Company and the one in which Mr.. Dingee
is interested.
walter S. Hobart, the other surety is
one of the heirs of the Hobart estate, and
the entire property so l have been in
formed, has been transferred to corpora
ton known as the Hobart Estate Com
pany, consequently title is in that corpor-
alton.
whether Hobart has received any GER
| tificates of stock in that incorporation or
now owns any such certificates is wholly
immaterial, since as matter of law it
would not entitle him to justify on said
| bond. The object of the law requiring
bonds to be given is to insure payment of
| judgment in case of its affirmance, and it
| contemplates that sureties shall at all
| times be able to meet the obligation of
such bonds and that they shall possess a
character of property which can be reached
by execution. If Hobart owns only GER
| tifcates of stock in corporation, which
such property and such interest are no
guarantee for pawn of the obligation of
| the bond.
"As a matter of fact" continued Mr..
| Baggett, 81 have thirty days after the APP
peal bond was served by the attorneys of
the defendants in which to file my objec-
ton to the sureties and demand that they
| justify, but | prefer to file it at once. After
| the filing of my objection the defendants
have twenty days to justify on the bond,
and when they select the day on which
they intend to justify they must give the
opposite party five days notice of the time
set for the hearing of said justification.
| They must then justify or give other sure
ties. Failing in this the execution issues
and the judgment can be collected
| Mr.. Baggett is quite confident that the
money will be paid to the stockholders
| shortly, and that the defendants have
about used up the last resource to stay ex-
ecution.