Page images

Cited in Blanchard v. Ladd, 135 Cal. 213, holding establishment or width and grade of street so shown.

76 Cal. 153-155. THOMPSON v. WILLIAMS; 9 Am. St. Rep. 187.

Corporations.-Act of Directors at special meeting improperly called is not valid, p. 155.

To same effect in Smith v. Dorn, 96 Cal. 83, as to passage of resolution authorizing conveyance; Curtin v. Salmon etc. Co., 130 Cal. 348, noteu under Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77; Hill v. Mining Co., 119 Mo. 26, holding special meeting void under facts and notice not waived; Whitehead v. Hamilton etc. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 84, ruling similarly as to adjourned meeting. Note citations; Doernbecher v. Lumber Co., 28 Am. St. Rep. 771, and Bank v. McCarthy, 29 Id. 67, on general subject; Benbow v. Cook, 44 Id. 460, on notice of corporate meetings.


Abatement of Nuisance may be asked by state if public, otherwise by owner of property affected, p. 161.

Note citations: Revell v. People, 69 Am. St. Rep. 271-280, and Carleton v. Rugg, 14 Am. St. Rep. 454, on general subject.

Nuisance. Whether encroachment on rights is, is question of fact for jury, p. 161.

See note to Melford v. Levy, 13 Am. St. Rep. 896, on general sub ject.

Nuisance.—Railroad in public park is not when not injurious to rights or privileges of public, p. 163.

See note to Jackson v. Kiel, 16 Am. St. Rep. 209, on general subject.

76 Cal. 166-169. ORO ETC. CO. v. STARR.

Fraudulent Conveyances.—Want of immediate delivery, cannot be raised by subsequent purchaser of same property, p. 168.

See note to Renninger v. Spartz, 15 Am. St. Rep. 695, on general subject.

76 Cal. 169-171. TAPPENDORFF v. DOWNING.

Accretions to land pass under deed conveying it, p. 170.

See note to Coulthard v. Stevens, 35 Am. St. Rep. 311, on general subject.

Description in Deed.—Statement of acreage is not controlling, p. 170.

To same effect in Baldwin v. Temple, 101 Cal. 402, as to conflict with specific boundaries.

76 Cal. 171-172. SMITH v. MOTT.

Pledge by Bailee is valid as against owner when he agrees to allow property to remain in pledge if pledgee will forbear debt, p 172.

To same effect in Patton v. Joliff, 44 W. Va. 91, but holdlag such for learance not asked nor given.

76 Cal. 173-174. SIEBER v. BLANC.

Landlord is not obliged at common law to put or keep property in repair, p. 173.

Cited in Gately v. Campbell, 124 Cal. 522, noted under Brewster v. De Fremery, 33 Cal. 341. See note to Sawyer v. McGillicuddy, 10 Am. St. Rep. 264, and Gregor v. Cady, 17 Id. 470, on general subject.

Landlord is not Liable to Tenant for injuries received by reason of condition of premises, notwithstanding covenant to keep in repair, p. 174.

To same effect in Smith v. Buttner, 90 Cal. 99, sustaining judgment on pleadings; Daley v. Quick, 99 Cal. 182, holding landlord not liable and no misrepresentation to tenant shown; Callahan v. Loughran, 102 Cal. 480, holding complaint insufficient and discussing such liability generally.

Landlord's Failure to Repair entitles tenant only to privileges speci. fied in statute, p. 174.

To same effect in Moroney v. Hellings, 110 Cal. 221, denying right of tenant to set up such failure in action for unlawful detainer after rent unpaid. Note citations: Minneapolis etc. Co. v. Williamson, 38 Am. St. Rep. 483, on landlord's statutory duties.

76 Cal. 175-177. JACOBS v. WALKER.

Land Contest may be had although certificate of purchase issued, p. 176.

To same effect in Taylor v. Weston, 77 Cal. 541, holding such certifi. cate not conclusive; McFaul v. Pfankuch, 98 Cal. 402; further discuss. ing bar of such proceeding by limitation; Polk v. Sleeper, 143 Cal. 74, noted under Hinckley v. Fowler, 43 Cal. 64.

76 Cal. 177-181. TURNER v. MCDONALD; 9 Am. St. Rep. 189.

Vendor and Vendee—Title.—"Good” and “perfect” titles , defined, p. 179, 180.

Cited in Reynolds v. Borel, 86 Cal. 542, holding title imperfect and subject to grave doubts under facts, and Sheehy v. Miles, 93 Cal. 292, ruling similarly; Peckham Stewart, 97 Cal. 153, also ruling similarly when contract specified "good and perfect” title, and Koshland v. Spring, 116 Cal. 699, as to "good and satisfactory" title;


Gwin v. Calegaris, 139 Cal. 387, holding title partly dependent on adverse possession not a "perfect” title; Muller v. Palmer, 144 Cal. 313, holding title a marketable one; Taylor v. Williams, 2 Colo. App. 564, on point that specific performance will not be decreed when title can be settled only by future litigation; and see Angus v. Robinson, 62 Vt. 65, as to specific performance; Meeks v. Garner, 93 Ala. 21, holding title to be "perfect and good"; Ankeny v. Clark, 1 Wash. St. 557, on point that equitable title will not satisfy bond for deed. Note citations: Town. shend v

Goodfellow, 12 Am. St. Rep. 742, on specific performance; Worley v. Nethercott, 25 Am. St. Rep. 212, on remedies of vendee when title defective; Herman v. Somers, 38 Id. 853, on marketable title.

Power of Attorney to sell land of principal does not cover property held under mortgage in form of deed absolute, p. 180.

Note citations: Penfold v. Warner, 35 Am. St. Rep. 594, on general subject.

Mortgage does not convey title, although in form of deed absolute, p. 180.

Note citations: Ensminger v. Ensminger, 9 Am. St. Rep. 463, on evidence to show such deed a mortgage.

76 Cal. 181-186. COPERTINI V, OPPERMANN.

Vendor and Vendee.--Title is good when owner has legal and equit. able title to all the land, p. 186.

To same effect in Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 184, holding title involved to be such.

Jurisdiction of Superior Court embraces action by vendee for return of deposit because title invalid, although less than three hundred dollars, p. 186.

Cited in Boyd v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 126 Cal. 574, and Raisch v. Sausalito etc. Co., 131 Cal. 217, noted under Holman v. Taylor, 31 Cal. 338; Hart v. Carnall etc. Co., 101 Cal. 162, as to action for breach of contract to locate plaintiff on vacant government land, involving ques. tions of title and possession thereof, and see S. C. 103 Cal. 142, holding rule applicable although such questions only incidentally involved.


Franchises.-Tolls are not collectible on wagon road after expiration of franchise, p. 190.

To same effect in People v. Turnpike Co., 122 Cal. 340, but granting right to collect tolls as fixed by supervisors, on extension of franchise under code; Virginia etc. Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 435, construing local statutes.

76 Cal. 192-196. COCKRILL V. HALL,

Instructions.-Exceptions to must be specific, p. 195.
Cited in Gray v. Eschen, 125 Cal. 6, holding exceptions insufficient.

76 Cal. 197-202. EMERSON v. BERGIN.

Statute of Frauds.-Agreement within need not be alleged to be in
writing, p. 202.

To same effect in Bradford etc. Co. y. Joost, 117 Cal. 207, as to agree.
ment alleged in answer.

76 Cal. 203-207. HOBSON V. HASSETT; 9 Am. St. Rep. 193.

Agency.-Note signed X. “president,” will hold signer personally
liable where no intent to bind corporation shown, p. 205.

To same effect in Kerry v. Marine Co., 121 Cal, 570; 66 Am. St. Rep.
70, holding managing owner of vessel personally liable under facts
stated; McCormick v. Stockton etc. Co., 130 Cal. 104, noted under Cham-
berlain v. Pacific etc. Co., 54 Cal. 103. Note citations: Peterson v.
Homan, 20 Am. St. Rep. 565; Johnson v. Armstrong, 29 Id. 650; Cream
City etc. Co. v. Friedlander, 36 Id. 899; Neeley v. State, 46 Id. 151, and
Norris v. Dains, 49 Id. 719, on agent's personal liability; Greenberg v.
Lumber Co., 48 Id. 918, on liability of corporate officers; Braun v. Hess,
79 Am. St. Rep. 225.

General Citation.-Janes v, Citizens Bank, 9 Okla. 564.

76 Cal. 208-212. SPARROW v. RHOADES; 9 Am. St. Rep. 197.

Ejectment.-General Denial permits defense of invalidity of deed un-
der which plaintiff claims, p. 210.

To same effect in Eastman v. Gurrey, 15 Utah, 420, as to plaintiff's
tax deed; Staley v. Housel, 35 Neb. 166, as to fraud in procurement of
plaintiff's deed; Commonwealth etc. Co. v. Dokko, 72 Minn. 231, as to
defense of usury in mortgage under which plaintiff deraigned title.

76 Cal. 212-221. BLACKWOOD v. CUTTING PACKING CO.; 9 Am. St.

Rep. 199; note, 206, and see CUTTING ETC. CO. V. PACKERS'

EXCHANGE, 86 Cal. 575, 577; 21 Am. St. Rep. 64, 65.
Warranty is Implied on sale of future crop of fruit, p. 214.

See notes to Fairbank etc. Co. v. Metzger, 16 Am. St. Rep. 759; Mc.
Cray etc. Co. v. Woods, 41 Id. 606, on general subject.

Sale of Future Crops is valid when to be grown on then existing
trees of vendor, p. 215.

To same effect in Shoemaker v. Acker, 116 Cal. 245, as to lemon crops
and further holding as to value of immature orchard.

Sales.-Title does not pass till payment of price when terms were cash on delivery, p. 215.

Cited in Hilmer v. Hills, 138 Cal. 139, holding fact that bills of lading were taken out in vendee's name not conclusive as to passing of title on such sale.

Sale.—Title Passes when goods are identified, although to be weighed or measured thereafter, p. 217.

To same effect in Lassing v. James, 107 Cal. 357, as to hay in speci. fied stacks. Note citations: Foley v. Felrath, 39 Am. St. Rep. 44, on general subject.

Sales.- Contract using word "gold" is not conclusive as indicating consummated sale, p. 218.

To same effect in Eaton v. Richeri, 83 Cal. 186, on point that "sold" does not necessarily or always mean that conveyance is made or title passes.

Breach of Warranty is not waived by acceptance of part of goods when all rights reserved, p. 220.

See notes to Woodruff v. Graddy, 44 Am. St. Rep. 36, on general subject.

76 Cal. 222-228. CITY OF NAPA v. EASTERBY.

Street Assessments.- Publication of ordinance does not exend to maps, et cetera, referred to therein, p. 227.

To same effect in In re Soher, 78 Cal. 481, on point that document referred to in will is not a part thereof as to attestation.

76 Cal. 230-234. HUGHES v. WHEELER.

Insufficient Pleading of Estoppel cannot be first raised on appeal when not when objected to below, p. 232.

To same effect in Sukeforth v. Lord, 87 Cal. 403 (cited in Mangum v. Mining Co., 15 Utah, 548), as to general allegation of fraud in answer; Willey v. Bank, 141 Cal. 518, as to plea of estoppel; Treanor v. Williams, 145 Cal. 320, applying rule in election contest.

Appeal.-Error in Instructions is not reversible when immaterial, p. 234.

To same effect in Edwards v. Wagner, 121 Cal. 378, as to such error; Foster v. Carr, 135 Cal. 87, applying rule in case of variance and admission of evidence when all the facts appeared; Lima v. County Bank, 142 Cal. 248, noted under Green v. Ophir etc. Co., 45 Cal. 522.

Error in Admitting Evidence is not reviewable in absence of specific objection, p. 234.

See note to Mutual etc. Soc. v. Lackland, 10 Am. St. Rep. 300, on general subject.

« PreviousContinue »