The record-union., 1898-06-08
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
SYLLABI.

SUThLMc UUUnI UIbiCIUuSs
SYLLABI.
Is. F., No 1O93-Department Two
Filed June 2, 1881 Il
John Kelso, appellant; p. ]. Cole ct
al, respondents. Street assessment.
Affirmed.
All proceedings for work upon
streets, etc, in the municipalities of
this State, under the Act of March Is,
1886, and the amendments thereto, are
purely statutory and can only be con-
Quoted in the cases and after the man
ner provided by the statutes. The au-
thority conferred by these statutes
must be strictly pursued.
Under the Street Act, the contract
must be fulfilled within the time speci-
fed therein or within such further time
as may have been given the contractor
during the life of the contract or no
assessment can be levied; and If after
the expiration of the limited time an
extension is granted and the work is
completed, it forms no foundation for a
valid assessment.
(Sac., No. 2951Department Two-Filed
June 3, 1889
Charles Trabing, a minor, by his
guardian ad litem, respondent; Califor-
MIA Navigation and Improvement Com
pany, appellant. Damages for personal
ejectment. Reversed.
While a corporation is liable in COM
pensatory damages for the wrongful
acts of its servants, it is not liable in
exemplary damages unless it is made
to appear that the corporation ratified
its servants acts.
Is. F., No. 1S2-Department Two
Filed June 3, 1889
Charles Plass. appellant; Catherine
Plass, executrix, ct al, respondents.
Ejectment. Reversed.
The Act of 1850 (Stats. 1850 p. 254)
provides that upon the dissolution Of
the community by the death of either
husband or wife, one-half of the COM
mon property shall go to the surviv or
and the other half to the descendants
OF the deceased husband or wife, sub
ject to the debts of the deceased" Held,
that the words shall CO. in the Act
mean shall vest" and apply equally
to the descendant of the deceased nus
band or wife, as the survivor, and that
upon the death of the mother the chill
dren of the marriage become tenants
in common with the father. There
fore, while an action in ejectment viii
not lie by an heir to recover the por-
tion inherited as against the admins
traitor, pending the administration of
the estate, it is proper for the court be-
fore which the ejectment suit is brought
to ascertain and settle the respective
interests of the parties. On these
grounds a non-Suit should not be
granted.
(Sac, No. 296-Department Two-Filed
June 3. 1889
Mary E. Moore, respondent; William
s. Kendall. appellant. Order dismiss
ing proceedings for new trial affirmed.
See Section $50 subdivision 8, c. c. p.
An appellant must prosecute his pro-
ceedings for new trial with reasonable
diligence.
O.. A, No. 2I9-Department Two-Filed
June 4, 1889
Isaac H. Bryson, respondent: A j.
McCone ct al, appellants. Damages for
breach of contract. Affirmed.
The word contractor" as used in
Section 1888, C. c. p. does not apply
to one who contracts to furnish mater
ial only.
Work done in placing machinery in
position, ready to be used, is but TIE
completion of the contract to deliver.
A breach of contract to furnish .Ha-
terials is not a contract to pay money,
a breach of which can only consist in
a refusal to pay: in such a case, there
fore. no demand is necessary before
bringing an action to recover for
breach.
Damages accruing after a suit for
damages for breach of contract is COM
menced are properly allowed. Also, in
such an action it is proper for the plain
tiff to show the profits which he would
have made.
Q-. A, No. 25S-Department Two-Filed
June 4, 1889
l. H. Bryson. appellant; A. ]. McCone
ct all, respondents. Affirmed.
When the contention of an appellant
is only that he is entitled to a different
Judgment upon the findings. there can
be no use for a bill of exceptions to
bring up the evidence.
The appellate court cannot supply the
defects in the findings. If facts exist
which are not found, and which are ma
terial, the error can only be corrected
by a new trial.
a. A, No. 29S-Department Two-Filed
June 4, 1889
John II. Wise ct al, respondents:
John L. Collins, appellant Replev.n.
Affirmed.
A document not having been executed
is not written instrument within the
meaning of the rule; its statements,
therefore. coming from parties thereto
are admissions on their part which arc
subject to explanation equally with like
verbal admission.
Error in the admission of testimony
Is cured by the subsequent introduction