76 Cal. 415-433. WHEATON v. NORTH BRITISH ETC. CO.; 9 Am. St. Кер. 216.

Insurance Company is bound by acts of local agent within general scope of business, unless insured knew of his real authority, p. 420.

To same effect in Farnum v. Insurance Co., 83 Cal. 257, 17 Am. St. Rep. 242 (and note, 247, 248), as to waiver of condition that policy should not operate until payment made; La Marche v. New York etc. Co., 126 Cal. 502, holding fraud of agent as to application attributable to company and not to applicant; Royal Neighbors v. Boman, 177 Ill. 31, applying rule to medical examiner of mutual benefit society; Titsworth v. Insurance Co., 62 Mo. App. 314, as to waiver of proof of loss; New York etc. Co. v. Russell, 77 Fed. Rep. 104, as to knowledge by agent of falsity of statements by insured at time of application; and see, on same point, Coles v. Insurance Co., 41 W. Va. 266; Taylor v. Insurance Co., 98 Iowa, 528, 60 Am. St. Rep. 215. Note citations: Baker v. Insurance Co., 14 Am. St. Rep. 493, and Follette v. Mutual etc. Assn., 28 Id. 696, on agent's misrepresentations; Burlington etc. Co. v. Gibbons, 19 Id. 123; German etc. Co. v. Gray, 19 Id. 157, Phenix etc. Co. v. Bowdre, 19 Am. St. Rep. 333; Berry v. Ins. Co., 28 Id. 555, Beebe v. Ins. Co., 32 Id. 527, Phenix etc. Co. v. Munger, 33 Id. 369; Carey v. Ins. Co., 36 Id. 916, German etc. Co. v. Humphrey, 54 Id. 301, American etc. Co. v. Fordyce, 54 Id. 309, and Snyder v. Ins. Co., 59 Id. 630, on agent's waiver of conditions; Crittenden v. Ins. Co., 39 Id. 326, on agent's knowledge of misrepresentations.

Insurance.-Misrepresentation on application as to value of property does not cause forfeiture unless wilful, p. 422.

To same effect in National Bank v. Insurance Co., 88 Cal. 505, 22 Am. St. Rep. 326, where misstatement as to lease was unintentional.

Insurance.-Adjustment operates as waiver of breach of warranty or condition, p. 429.

To same effect in West Coast etc. Co. v. Investment Co., 98 Cal. 512, as to waiver of false proof of loss; Washburn etc. Co. v. Merchants' etc. Co., 110 Iowa, 425, holding condition as to proof of loss waived by acts of agent. Note citations: Graves v. Ins. Co., 31 Am. St. Rep. 514, on agent's power of waiver.

Estoppel cannot be predicated on facts not known, p. 429.

Note citations: Johnson v. Cochran, 12 Am. St. Rep. 295; De Berry v. Wheeler, 49 Id. 542, on general subject.

Insurance Company is not Estopped from claiming forfeiture for fraudulent representations, by agent's request for proof of loss, p. 432.

To same effect in McCormick v. Insurance Co., 86 Cal. 263, 264, holding no estoppel shown under facts, as to misrepresentations concerning ownership; dissenting opinion in Corwin v. Railway Co., 51 Kan. 461,

as to estoppel of owner to object to validity of condemnation. Note citations: Newman v. Covenant etc. Assn., 14 Am. St. Rep. 204; Far num v. Ins. Co., 17 Id. 247, 248; Quinlan v. Ins. Co., 28 Id. 650, 651; Enos v. Ins. Co., 46 Id. 813; Home etc. Co. v. Kennedy, 53 Id. 526, on waiver of forfeiture.

General Citations-Robinson v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 90 Me. 393; Loeb v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 99 Mo. 56.

76 Cal. 434-436. HOLLAND v. WILSON.

Mechanics' Liens.-Contract for more than one thousand dollars is void unless plans and specifications therein referred to are filed, p.436. To same effect in Willamette etc. Co. v. College Co., 94 Cal. 233, further holding as to its sufficiency as memorandum to be filed in lieu of contract; and, on same point, Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 320; Yancy v. Morton, 94 Cal. 562, where drawings not filed; White v. Bank 98 Cal. 168, but holding that objection could not be first raised on appeal.

Mechanics' Liens.-Contract is void when not filed, if for more than one thousand dollars, p. 436.

To same effect in Rebman v. San Gabriel etc. Co., 95 Cal. 394, 395 397, but sustaining money action for reasonable value of labor or materials.

76 Cal. 436-454. PEOPLE v. HENSHAW.

Police Courts.-Whitney Act (Statutes 1885, p. 213) is constitutional p. 440.

To same effect in Ex parte Halsted, 89 Cal. 472, further holding no conflict to exist between it and section 1446, Penal Code; Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 334, holding county government act as to terms of justices not applicable to San Francisco; in re Mitchell, 120 Cal. 385, 394, further holding court not abolished in Los Angeles by reason of increase in population.

General Law is one operating alike on all persons to whom it applies and applicable equally to all in same category, p. 445.

To same effect in Cody v. Murphey, 89 Cal. 524, and Summerland v. Bicknell, 11 Cal. 570, sustaining acts regulating official salaries in counties of certain class; Ex parte Clancy, 90 Cal. 558, but excluding act allowing appeals from contempt orders in insolvency cases alone; and Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 249, 250, 251, ruling similarly as to act making arbitrary discrimination and classification in proceedings for municipal condemnation; and Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 621, (concurring opinion), also ruling similarly as to act permitting employment of deputy county clerk in certain specified classes; Solano v. McCudden, 120 Cal. 651, sustaining section 51, county government act of 1893, as

to presentation of claims against counties; Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 147, sustaining act as to trespassing animals in certain counties; Ellis v. Jefferds, 130 Cal. 480, discussing supervisors' salaries under County Government Acts of 1893 and 1897; Union etc. Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 625, noted under Pritchett v. Stanislaus Co., 73 Cal. 310. Distinguished in Henderson v. State, 137 Ind. 577, holding act discussed to be special. Note citation: State v. Ellet, 21 Am. St. Rep. 784, 785, on general subject.

Classification of Municipal Corporations is within legislative control, p. 446.

To same effect in Darcy v. Mayor, 104 Cal. 644, but holding classifying act void when arbitrary; and, on same point, Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 405; Mintzer v. Schilling, 117 Cal. 363, sustaining act providing for disincorporation of cities of single class; Koester v. Board, 44 Kan. 143, sustaining act discussed; Waite v. Santa Cruz, 89 Fed. Rep. 624, sustaining act for bond issues in cities of certain classes.

Municipal Charters may be amended by general law, p. 446.

To same effect in Ex parte Ah You, 82 Cal. 342, 343, sustaining act establishing police courts in certain class of cities (statutes 1885, p. 213); Kennedy v. Board, 82 Cal. 492, on point that code provisions as to schools control San Francisco consolidation act; People v. Bagley, 85 Cal. 346, but sustaining right to change from general to special charter; Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 41 (but see dissenting opinions, 56, 57), holding special charter superseded by subsequent conflicting general laws; Santa Cruz v. Enright, 95 Cal. 111, holding Code sections such laws; People v. Hill, 125 Cal. 20, and Ex parte Helm, 143 Cal. 556, noted under Staude v. Election Commrs., 61 Cal. 313; Ex parte Braun, 141 Cal. 208, 217, noted under Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73; Huntington v. Nevada, 75 Fed. Rep. 62, sustaining acts permitting creation of bonded indebtedness. Cited, also in People v. Gunn, 85 Cal. 244, discussing necessary defendants in action to dissolve municipal corporation.

76 Cal. 454-456. ROUSSINET v. REBOUT.

Lessor is Liable to lessee for damage done to property by him, although done without negligence, p. 456.

Distinguished in Tatum v. Thompson, 86 Cal. 208, holding lessor not liable for damages from condition caused by fire.

76 Cal. 457-460. RUDDLE v. GIVENS.

Fraudulent Conveyance.—Continued change of possession held not shown, p. 457. See note to Renninger v. Spatz, 15 Am. St. Rep. 695, and Stephens v. Gifford, 21 Id. 876, on general subject.

76 Cal. 460-465. PEOPLE v. HANSELMAN.

9 Am. St. Rep. 238.

Larceny.-Information must show property owned by other than de. fendant, p. 461.

See note to State v. Powell, 14 Am. St. Rep. 826, on general subject.

Larceny.-Contest to taking is not shown by mere passive submission,

p. 462.

See notes to State v. Hull, 72 Am. St. Rep. 703, and 36 Am. St. Rep. 302.

76 Cal. 465-469. WRIGHT v. MIX.

Obligation is Extinguished by payment and cannot be kept alive thereafter, p. 468.

To same effect in James v. Yaeger, 86 Cal. 187, as to note, further holding purchaser after maturity to take subject to such defense, Yule v. Bishop, 133 Cal. 579, quoting James v. Yaeger, 86 Cal. 187.

76 Cal. 469-472. BARR v. O'DONNELL; 9 Am. St. Rep. 242.

Express Trust is not creatable by proof of parol agreement to hold in trust, p. 471.

To same effect in Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 528, 12 Am. St. Rep. 164 (and note, 172), further holding case not within exceptions to statute of frauds, and on same point, Hasshagen v. Hasshagen, 80 Cal. 518, 519, further holding no resulting trust shown; and Babcock v. Chase, 111 Cal. 353, where no actual or constructive fraud charged; Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 192, holding no express or implied trust created under facts stated. Note citations: Mannix v. Purcell, 15 Am. St. Rep. 584, Hamer v. Sidway, 21 Id. 700, Bork v. Martin, 28 Id. 574, and Johnson v. Calnan, 41 Id. 230, on general subject; Larmon v. Knight, 33 Id. 233, on constructive trusts.

Statute of Frauds.-Demurrer may raise defense when facts appear in complaint, p. 471.

See note to Mitchell v. Thorne, 30 Am. St. Rep. 705, and Speyer v. Desjardins, 36 Id. 477, on general subject.

76 Cal. 472-474. STALLARD v. CUSHING.

Obstruction of Private Way may be abated as nuisance by abutting owner, p. 474.

To same effect in Hargro v. Hodgdon, 89 Cal. 630, as to obstruction of public alley where special damage suffered. Note citations: Herman v. Roberts, 16 Am. St. Rep. 806, on repair of easements.

76 Cal. 474-476. RYALL v. CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. Contributory Negligence is bar to recovery, although defendant negli

gent in disobeying municipal ordinance, p. 476. See note to Columbus etc. Co. v. Bridges, 11 Am. St. Rep. 66, on general subject.

76 Cal. 476-486.

HELM v. WILSON. S. C. 89 Cal. 595.

Description in Deed.-Error will be rejected when land can be identified by existing monuments thereon, p. 484.

To same effect in Burnham v. Stone, 101 Cal. 170, sustaining description in writ of restitution, although reference to government subdivisions was erroneous; Reclamation Dist. v. McCullah, 124 Cal. 180, noted under Reamer v. Nesmith, 34 Cal. 624; McLean v. Baldwin, 136 Cal. 567, rejecting mistake in lis pendens as falsa demonstratio. Note citations: Finlayson v. Finlayson, 11 Am. St. Rep. 845, on mistakes in deeds.

Ejectment.-Equitable Rights of defendant may be shown in action for, p. 484.

See note to McKay v. Williams, 11 Am. St. Rep. 602, on general subject.

Agreement for Division Line, followed by possession for statutory period accordingly, is binding irrespective of fact of dispute when agreement made, p. 485.

To same effect in Silvarer v. Hansen, 77 Cal. 587, further holding purchaser from contracting owner, with notice, bound by such agreement; Cavanaugh v. Jackson, 91 Cal. 583, further holding contracting party bound, though having then only possession, who afterwards acquires title; Thaxter v. Inglis, 121 Cal. 594, sustaining holdings under such agreement; Western Union Oil Co. v. Newlove, 145 Cal. 774, where findings as to practical location are supported by evidence, findings as to laches which are mere legal conclusions from findings as to practical location, are immaterial.

Estoppel-Division Line. Possession under agreement there for and making of valuable improvements, will estop other contracting party from disturbing line agreed upon, p. 486.

To same effect in Stewart v. Sefton, 108 Cal. 208, holding estoppel created under facts. Note citations: Cook v. Walling, 10 Am. St. Rep. 22, on estoppel by silence.

76 Cal. 487-488. CARPENTER v. EWING.

Instructions will be presumed justified by evidence where not in record, unless erroneous in every conceivable state of facts, p. 488.

To same effect in Frost v. Grizzly etc. Co., 102 Cal. 527, sustaining instructions in action for damages for nuisance; State v. Mason, 24 Mont. 343, noted under People v. Levison, 16 Cal. 98.

Objection to Instruction based on improper admission of evidence cannot be first raised on appeal, p. 488.