The record-union., 1895-11-08
The HHRESHER GREGORY JUDGMENT.
It Has Been Affirmed by the Supreme
Court.
All About a Contract for Peaches-The
Court Reverses a Siskiyou
Land Case.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the
Judgment of the Superior Court of this
county in the case OF c. w. Thresher,
respondent, against Gregory Brothers
Company, appellants.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover
1916 Go, balance alleged to be due for
peaches sold and delivered by him to
defendants in 1892, and also to recover
the further sum of 1892 80, balance al
legged to be due for peaches sold and de-
Ivered by George and p. B. Thresher to
defendants in 1892, and by the sellers
assigned to plaintiff.
The defendants by their answer ad-
mitted the purchase of the peaches, but
aVerred that the balance remaining
due and unpaid is only SD 40, and that
the balance remaining due to plant
If s assignees for their peaches is only
ST. 30, and they offered to allow judg-
ment to be taken against them for the
aggregate of these amounts
The case was tried by Judge Johnson
without a jury and the findings We're:
That for the peaches purchased OF
plaintiff there was due STA So, and for
the peaches purchased of plalntlff S
aSSieneeS there was due Sll2 70, and
that plaintiff was entitled to judgment
for the aggregate of these sums,
S347 06. with legal interest thereon
from September 80. 1892, until the rem
dition of the judgment.
Judgment was accordingly so en-
terea from which and from an order de-
nying a new trial defendants appealed.
Counsel for appellants" says the SUI
preme Court, makes no point as to the
insufflciency of the evidence to JUSTIFY
the findings, but insisted that numerous
errors in law We're committed by the
court during the trial which call for 3
reversal. The first point made is that
the court erred in overruling objections
to questions propounded to Il. j. Greg
DRY on discrimination"
The defendants claimed that the court
also erred in oVerruling questions pro-
pounded to other witnesses in the case.
The Supreme Court holds that the
testimony was competent and admls-
sible for the purpose for which 1t was
offered. and il sees no error in the &C
ton of the court admitting it. The
court also holds that the evidence was
sufficient to justify the findings of the
lower court, and that no prejudicial
error was committed in any of its rul-
ings.
The decision is by Commissioners
Belcher Britt and Vanclief and is ap-
proved by Justices Harrison, GarOutte
and Van Fleet, comprising Department
One.
A SISKIYOU REVERSAL.
The Supreme Court has reversed the
decision of the Superior Court of Sis
kiyou County in the case of the Central
Pacific Railroad Company, respondent
against Mary i. DeetZ, defendant, and
H P Martin and c. r. GrOsjean, inter
venors and appellants. The cause is
remanded and the lower court directed
to overrule the demurrer to the COM
plant of intervention.
The action was Brought to bar the
right of the defendant TO certain land
which she had contracted to purchase
from plaintiff. Appellants filed a COM
plant of Intervention, to which the
plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was
sustained and judgment having been
rendered for plaintiff the intervenOrs
appealed.
1t was aVerred in the complaint that
after defendant had entered into the
contract for the purchase of the land,
she and several other persons named
in the complaint executed and deliver
ed to one NJ. a. Harding their promis-
sorry note for SD 1000, payable with in
terest two years from its date which
was April -, 1891. At the same time,
TO secure the payment of the sum the
makers executed and delivered to Hard
ing a mortgage on the premises de-
scribed in the complaint and upon
other lands. Also that the intervenors
have become the owners of the note
and mortgage.
It was also charged in the complaint
that prior TO the 10Th day of October.
1892, the intervenors offered to pay
the railroad company the balance of its
demand, 1900, but plaintiff refused to
accept payment thereof from them
without the production by them of a
certain contract that the intervenors
were not then in possession of and
were not able to produce, which facts
We're by them communicated to the
plaintiff
The prayer was that the intervenors
be allowed to pay the plaintiff all sums
due on the contract, and that thereupon
plaintiff be required TO convey the land
to Mary A. Deetz TO be held subject TO
the lien of their mortgage.
The main contention on the part Of
the plaintiff was that inasmuch as the
intervenors did not offer to surrender
the contract and were not able to DO so
they could not perform the CONTRACT
and are not entitled to pay the amount