The herald., 1896-10-29
THE STATE SUPREME COURT
FIRST Presbyterian Church Matters to
Come Up
The Last Session Of the Court in This
City-A Sacramento Decision on
Two Notes for $2S00.

The Last Session Of the Court in This
City-A Sacramento Decision on
Two Notes for $2So0.
This is the last day the supreme court
will be in session, and several important
cases are set for hearing. OF these,
perhaps the most important, so far as
the public interest is concerned, is the
case of Wheelock ct al, appellants, VS..
First Presbyterian church, etc, re-
spondent.
The story Is more or less we'll known
of the internal dissensions that rent the
First Presbyterian church. From their
inception in the old building at the cor
ner of Broadway and Second streets, up
to the time when Rev. Burt Estes How
ard, and that portion of the flock bear
ing his particular brand, shook the dust
of the Presbyterian church from off
their feet and went forth as ecclesias-
tical free lances of the Presbyterian per-
suasion, the facts have been made pub
lic Many points of law are involved in
the case, and Shirley c. Ward, esq,
and A. NJ. Stephens, esq, will represent
the appellants, while j. S. Chapman,
esq.,, will appear for the respondent.
This case was set for hearing yeSter-
day, but was carried over until this
morning.
The following is the list Of cases on
the calendar for hearing in department
today:
Department one-Schart, appellant.
VS.. Schart, respondent, Los Angeles
county; Donnell & Rowland for appel
liant, H. o. Collins for respondent.
napialsOn annellant VS. YOCum. re-
spondent, Los Angeles county; Coch-
ran G. Williams for appellant, Allen &
Flint for respondent
Clark ct al, respondents, vs. Yocum
ct al, appellants, Los Angeles county;
w. S. Wright and L. G. Kellogg for
respondents, w. Z. Arthur and A. E.
Metcalte for appellants.
! Kellerman, appellant, VS.. Maier ct al,
! respondents, Los Angeles county; f. w.
Burnett for appellant, j. T. Houx for
respondents.
harvey administrator, etc., respond
geles county; White & Monroe for re-
spondent Max Lowenthal for appel
lantS.
Wilson ct al, appellants, VS.. Carter,
respondent, Los Angeles county; Null
ford IL Pollard for appellants, Frank A.
Cattern respondent
Department two-Ingham ct al, trus-
pellants; Thompson ct al, respondents,
Los Angeles county; Wicks, Mcdonald
& Wicks for respondents; Mckeeby &
Appel for appellants; H. T. Gordon for
respondents.
Graham, respondent, VS.. Farmers and
Merchants bank, appellant, Los Ange-
les county; E. A. Meserve for respond
ent, Graves, O'Melveny & Shankland
for appellant.
Ferguson, respondent, VS.. Sherman
ct al, appellants, Los Angeles county;
Wells d Lee for respondent, Bicknell
& Trask, j. S. Chapman and John y.
Pope for appellants.
Swope, respondent, VS.. Sherman ct
al, appellants, Los Angeles county; Ed
win A. Meserve for respondent, Bick-
nell & Trask, j. S. Chapman and John
d. Pope for appellants.
Estate of Bridget Wilson ct AL, re-
spondents, VS.. McConnachie ct AL, ap-
pellants, Los Angeles county; Smith Il
Winder, A. M. Stephens, Anderson &
Anderson for appellants, Chapman &
Hendrick, White & Monroe, George j.
Denis for Wilson respondent, Reddy
Campbell & Metson, James Garland, j,
7. Houx for Mcmahon.
A SACRAMENTO DECISION
The supreme court yesterday handed
down a decision in the case of Eppinger
& Co., plaintiffs and appellants, and j
*. Kendrick, defendant and respondent
carried up from Sacramento.
| This action was brought against M
| P. Farnham and j. hendrick upon tive
| promissory notes, each dated August
19, 1891, payable one day after date, one
| for $4,000 and the other for $500, to the
| order of Eppinger & Co., upon which
| there was claimed to remain unpaid
81, 1904 and interest. Farnham having
| been adjudged an insolvent debtor, die
not answer, and the action proceeded
against Kendrick alone, whose answer
! consisted of general denial and a spe.
| cial defense in which it was alleged that
on September II, 1887, Farnham was in.
debted to the plaintiffs in the sum Of
$4,000, and at the request of Oscar c.
Schultz, manager and agent for saiG
plaintiffs in their mercantile bushes.
| at Germantown, he (kendrick) executed
with Farnham note for $1,000, payable
! to the order of the plaintiffs one day aftel
date, with interest at the rate of l pei
cent per month; that he executed thu
| same upon the representation of sai(
| Schultz that plaintiffs needed money
that Farnham's note was not good al
collateral security and that his (Ken
| drick'S) name would be used for nj
| other purpose than to make the not,
| good as collateral security at the bank
| and that the notes in suit were given II
| renewal thereof; that he did not exc
| cute any of the notes at the request o
Farnham and that as to him they wer
| without consideration. 1t was also al
legged that in 1890 Farnham delivered
| to plaintiffs a quantity of wheat suffi
cient to have paid said note, with the re
quest that it should be applied thereon
| but that Schultz said that he wanted t
use the note longer and he would Sc
| kendrick and obtain his consent, bu
| did not do so; that he received no con
sideration for the execution of any o
| the notes, and that Farnham did not re
| quest him to execute them.
The jury returned verdict for tn
defendant, and thus appeal is from tn
Judgment entered thereon and from al
order denying a new trial.
Plaintiffs motion for judgment on tn
pleadings was properly denied.
In deciding the case the court affrme,
the judgment and order of the lowe
court