Page images
PDF
EPUB

Spellman v. Rannigan, 36 Hun. 174...
Spinetti v. Brignardello, 53 Cal. 283.
Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27...
Stande v. Election Commissioners, 61 Cal. 325.
Stanton v. Allen, 5 Depio, 434.
Stark v. Storrs, 6 Wall. 402.
State v. Ah Chuey, 14 Nev. 79.
State v. Conkling. 19 Cal. 512.
State v. Lafayette Co., 41 Mo. 226.
State r. Lazarus, 36 La. Ann. 579.
State v. McArthur, 13 Wis. 407.
State ex rel. Stow, 51 Ala, 69.
State v. Smith, 70 Cal. 156.
State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn, 272.
Steele v. Supervisors of Merced County, 62 Cal. 6.
Steen y. Niagara Company, 89 N. Y. 315.,
Stoakes v. Monroe, 36 Cal. 585..
Stockton R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 51 Cal. 339.
Stokes v. Stevens, 40 Cal. 391...
Stork v. Judge of Sup. Court. 41 Mich. 5.
Strathern y, Dakin, 63 Cal. 479..
Strong v. S. M. Ins. Co., 31 N. Y. 103.
Strother v. Lucas. 12 Pet. 454.
Sturdivant v. 1]]]], 59 Me. 172.
Sturtevant v. Jacques, 14 Allen, 523.
Taylor v. McLain, 64 Cal. 514.
Terry v. Sickles, 13 Cal. 430.
The Elgee Cotton Cases, 22 Wall. 180.
Thomason y. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73.
Thompson v. Thompson, 52 Cal. 154.
Toland v. Mandell, 38 Cal. 30.
Tormey v. Pierce, 49 Cal. 306.
Treadwell y. Davis, 34 Cal. 601.
Treadwell v. Patterson, 51 Cal. 637.
Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street R. R. Co., 69 Cal. 632.
Trojan Mining Co. v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 28.
Truett v, Adams, 66 Cal. 218.
Truett v. Adams, 66 Cal. 223.
Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101.
Turner v. Moore, 58 Vt. 456.
Twyne Case, 3 Coke, 80....
United States v. McLaughlin, 127 U. S. 428.
United States v. Whittier, 5 Dill. 35...
Valentine v, Stewart, 15 Cal. 104...
Van Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 566.
Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N. Y. 135.
Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Barb. 613.
Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 370..
Van Wyck v. Knevals, 100 U. S. 365.
Vassault v. Edwards, 43 Cal. 458.
Village of Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 389.
Volde v. Vodicka, 49 Mo. 98.
Voll v. Hollis, 60 Cal. 574, 575.
Wade v. Thayer, 40 Cal. 585.
Walker v. Locke, 5 Cush. 90.....
Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 482.
Ward v. McNaughton, 43 Cal. 159.
Watson v. Superior Court, 40 Mich. 730.

174 625 205 449 391 506 317 412 549 553 553 553 296

315 .377, 620

427

352 549, 550

48 552 324 149 502 205 179 180 100

217 .446, 453

527 505 612 393 207 323

237 .527, 536 234, 485

205 216 540

560 464

393 174 68 68

507 .503, 504, 506

202 519 486 630

534 471 255 471 552

Weil v. Porter, 77 Mo. 297..
Wells v. Circuit Judge, 39 Mich. 21.
Wenzel v. Commercial Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 410.
White, Ex parte, 67 Cal. 102..
White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 610.
Whitney V. Morrow, 112 U. S. 693.
Whitney v. Morrow, 112 U. S. 695.
Wilbur v. How, 8 Johns. 444.
Williams v. McDonald, 58 Cal. 529.
Williams v. Robbins, 16 Gray. 77.
Willson v. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 201.
Wilson v. Middleton, 2 Cal. 54.
Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 121,
Wood y. Wrede, 46 Cal. 637.
Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389.
Worrall v. Munn, 38 N. Y. 137.
Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 N. Y. 31.
Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 500.

49 552 238 512 485 501 504 390 611 205 211 534 505

585 177, 189

303

201 .503, 50%

!

CODE CITATIONS.

187..10

PAGE

133 .133, 627

436 510

360.

582 370

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. BECTION

PAGE SECTION

645 1139. 337.

607 1160. 339.

.606, 607 1183.

101 1183. 376.

241 119.). 377.

241 1238. 385.

409 1242. 389.

512 1243. 407.

611 1244. 412.

.611, 612, 613, 647 1247. 413.

614 1203,, 430.

43 1283. 457.

41 1365., 475.

.280, 632 1371. 510.

289

1407. 511.

289

1465.,

289 1474., 553.

.564, 565 1476.. 556.

290 1726. 595.

342 1739, 612.

196 1743. 650.

..356, 595, 596 1835, 059. .9, 10, 105, 365, 595, 96 1851. 664.

531 1861. 684.

542 1880. 744.

180

1963.. 803.

437 1971.. 810.

437 2051. 838.

.184, 185 2052, 939.

354 2061. 956.

302 2066... 1086.

276

412, 413

410 413 412 525 380 297 297 299 229

641 .611, 644 297, 298 . 297, 298

298 108

512...

279

107 152, 297, 652

471 196 196 196 196

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN

THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

[No. 12217. Department Two.—April 28, 1888.] BUTTE COUNTY, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM J. MOR

GAN ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Tax COLLECTOR— TREASURER-DEFALCATION-PRESUMPTION.-Under the

provisions of the county government act and Political Code, if the same person is both treasurer and tax collector, and he settles bis accounts as tax collector with the auditor, and receives a certificate stating the amount due from him as tax collector, which certificate is afterwards found in the treasury, the presumption is, that the money was deposited in the treasury with the certificate, and in the absence of evidence as to when a defalcation occurred, that it occurred after the money was so deposited ; and the sureties of the treasurer are

liable. ID.- EVIDENCE-ADMISSION.-The admission of the receipt of money

by the principal in an official bond is evidence against his sureties.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butto County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

A. L. Hart, and A. F. Jones, for Appellants.

J. C. Gray, and F. C. Lusk, for Respondente

HAYNE, C.-Action against a county treasurer and the sureties on his official bond. The court below gave judgment

LXXVI. CAL-1

« PreviousContinue »