2. IDEM. Thus, where the agreement of submission recited a sale and resale of certain lands, out of which transaction disputes and misunderstandings had arisen, and the submission was of "all and every matter of dispute arising from or growing out of the transaction, aforesaid," an award that one party receive from the other a certain amount of money and convey to him the lands mentioned, is prima facie authorized by the submission. Id.

3. WHO MAY SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION.-Wherever parties may by their own act transfer real property, or exercise any act of ownership with regard to it, they may refer any disputes concerning it to the decision of arbitrators, who may order the same acts to be done which the parties themselves might do by agreement. This was the rule at common law and is not altered by section three hundred and eighty of the Practice Act. Id.

ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE.

See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 11; PROMISSORY NOTE, 4; PAYMENT, 1; MORTGAGE, 7, 8, 23; PARTIES, 3; CONTRACT, 7; MEXICAN GRANT, 1.

ATTACHMENT.

See PRACTICE, 4, 16, 17; PLEADING, 18.

ATTORNEY.

1. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW-AUTHORITY TO APPEAR.-The authority of an attorney-at-law to appear for parties for whom he enters an appearance in an action will be presumed where nothing to the contrary appears. Hays v. Shattuck, 51.

BILL OF EXCHANGE

See PROMISSORY NOTE; PAYMENT, 2.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

See FRANCHISE, 2, 3; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 8, 4.

BOND.

1. JOINT BOND WHEN INVALID.-A bond, which in form is the joint obligation of a principal and his sureties, and not joint and several, and signed by the sureties but not by the principal, is invalid and not binding upon the sureties. People v. Hartley, 585

2. SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL.-The absence of the signature of the principal obligor to an official bond is not a defect which may be cured by its suggestion in a complaint under the eleventh section of the Act concerning Official Bonds. Id.

See UNDERTAKING.

BRIDGES AND FERRIES.

1. BRIDGES AND FERRY FRANCHISES.-The provisions of the Acts of 1850 and 1855, concerning bridges and ferries, prohibiting the subordinate granting tribunals from licensing a second bridge or ferry within one mile of a former one, except under certain conditions, one of which is where a second grant is required by the public convenience, impose no restrictions upon the power of the Legislature in making other grants. Fall v. County of Sutter, 237.

2. IDEM-TOLL-BRIDGES.-Under the Act of 1850 concerning public ferries, the plaintiffs, in 1852, obtained from the Court of Sessions of Yuba County, a license to construct and maintain a toll-bridge across the Feather River, at a point near the city of Marysville, and constructed and have since maintained, at the point indicated, a bridge sufficient to accommodate the line of travel, and have complied with all the provisions of the law regulating franchises of this character. In 1859 the Legislature by special act granted to the defendants the privilege of constructing another bridge within six hundred feet of that of plaintiffs, and calculated to accommodate the same line of travel, and to impair greatly the profits and value of plaintiffs' franchise. Defendants having commenced the construction of a bridge under this act, plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin its completion and its use for the purpose intended: Held, that plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunction. Id.

See FRANCHISE, 1, 7; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 3, 4.

CASES AFFIRMED.

Bond, Invalidity of-Sacramento v. Dunlap, 14 Cal. 423, in People v. Hartley, 589. Estates of Deceased Persons, Foreclosure of Mortgage on-Fallon v. Butler, 30, in Pechaud v. Rinquet, 76.

Indictment-People v. Dolan, 9 Cal. 576, in People v. Vance, 402.

Intervention-Davis v. Eppinger, 18 Cal. 378, in Speyer v. Ihmels, 287.

Jurors, how Drawn-People v. Stewart, 4 Cal. 218, in People v. Vance, 403.

Justification of Sureties-Rouzch v. Van Hagen, 18 Cal. 668, in Tevis v. O'Connell, 512. Lands Donated to State-Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 296, in Van Valkenburg v. McCloud, 337.

Limitation of Actions-Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 482, in McCarthy v. White, 501.

New Matter-Piercy. Sabin, 10 Cal. 22, and Glazer v. Cliff, Id. 303, in Coles v. Soulsby,

50.

New Fromise-Fairbanks v. Dawson, 9 Cal. 89, in Peña v. Vance, 149.

Note made by Agent-Haskell v. Cornish, 13 Cal. 45, in Shaver v. Ocean M. Co., 46. Tenant in Common may Sue in Ejectment-Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 162, in Hart v. Robertson, 348, and Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 583.

Vendor's Lien not Assignable-Baum v. Grigsby, 177, in Lewis v. Covillaud, 189, and Williams v. Young, 228.

Verbal Stipulations-Patterson v. Ely, 19 Cal. 35, in Reese v. Mahoney, 308.

Writ of Assistance under Foreclosure Decree-Montgomery v. Middlemiss, 103, in Montgomery v. Byers, 108.

CASES CITED AS AUTHORITY.

Alcalde's Grants-Cohas v. Raisin, 3 Cal. 443; Dewey v. Lambier, 7 Cal. 347; Welch v. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 165; Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 232, in White v. Moses, 40. Certiorari-Ex parte Attorney-General, 1 Cal. 85; People v. Shear, 7 Id. 139, in Miliken v. Huber, 169.

Commencement of Action-Sharp v. Maguire, 19 Cal. 577, in Pimental v. San Francisco, 367.

Community Property—Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 251; Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 291, in Burton v. Lies, 91.

Consideration in Deed, Limitation to Proof of Bennett v. Solomon, 6 Cal. 135, in Coles v. Soulsby, 51.

Decision on Appeal-Nieto v. Carpenter, 7 Cal. 527; Phelan v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 39, in Nieto v. Carpenter, 483.

Dismissal, Effect of-Dowling v. Polack, 18 Cal. 625, in Leese v. Sherwood, 164.

Dying Declarations-People v. Glenn, 10 Cal. 36, in People v. Lawrence, 372.

Ejectment-Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 572, in Hubbard v. Barry, 324.

Ejectment, Parties Defendant in-Garner v. Marshall, 9 Cal. 268, in Dutton v. Warschauer, 619.

Executors may Sue in Ejectment-Meeks v. Hahn, 20 Cal. 620, in Burton v. Lies, 91, and Touchard v. Keyes, 209.

Foreclosure, Remedy by-Nagle v. Macy, 9 Cal. 429, in Fallon v. Butler, 33. Parties in-Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 314; Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461; Boggs v. Hargrave, 16 Cal. 562, in Burton v. Lies, 91; Horn v. Volcano W. Co., 18 Cal. 107, in Montgomery v. Middlemiss, 107.

Franchise-Bridges and Ferries-Indian Cañon Road v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 519, in Fall v. Sutter Co., 252.

Issues Raised by Denials-Gavin v. Annan, 2 Cal. 494; McLarren v. Spalding, 511. Declared overruled in Piercy v. Sabin, 10 Cal. 22, and Glazer v. Clift, Id. 303, which latter cases are cited as authority in Coles v. Soulsby, 50; Higgins v. Wortell, 18 Cal. 330, in Wells v. McPike, 218.

Judgment entered nunc pro tunc-Black v. Shaw, 20 Cal. 68, in Savings & L. S. v. Gibb, 609.

Judicial Sales-Cowell v. Buckalew, 14 Cal. 641; Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 256; Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 292, in Fallon v. Butler, 31; Cloud v. El Dorada Co., 12 Cal. 133, in Clark v. Lockwood, 224; Kent v. Laffan, 2 Cal. 595; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 412, in Gross v. Fowler, 395.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Haight v. Gay, 8 Cal. 297, in Miliken v. Huber, 169. Legal Title to Prevail in Ejectment-Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272; Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 160, in Clark v. Lockwood, 221.

Mexican Grants-Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 269, in Rico v. Spence, 511; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 592, in Berreyesa v. Schultz, 542; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 551; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 621, in Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 576.

Mortgage is a mere Security-McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365; Nagle v. Macy, Id. 426; Haffley v. Maier, 13 Cal. 13; Koch v. Briggs, 14 Cal. 256; Clark v. Baker, Id. 612; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Id. 287; Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Id. 467; Fogarty v. Sawyer, 17 Id. 592; Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 487, in Dutton v. Warschauer, 621.

Objections to Witness-McCloud v. O'Neal, 16 Cal. 392, in Pierce v. Jackson, 641. Possession of Land-Bequette v. Caulfield, 4 Cal. 278; Bird v. Lisbros, 9 Cal. 5, in Hubbard v. Barry, 325; Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 363; Lestrade v. Barth, 19 Cal. 660, in Dutton v. Warschauer, 628.

Review of Findings on Appeal—Riley v. Heisch, 18 Cal. 201, in Nieto v. Carpenter,

484.

Setting aside Judgment by Default-Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706, in Lewis v. Rigney,

273.

State Laws, Presumptions as to-Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 253, in Hickman v. Alpaugh, 226.

State Patent Conclusive-Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 331, in Rhodes v. Craig, 423.
Tenant in Common may Recover whole Estate against Intruder-Stark v. Barrett, 15
Cal. 371, in Hart v. Robinson, 348; Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 583.

Vendors' Lien-Sparks v. Hess, 15 Cal. 194; Taylor v. McKinney, 20 Cal. 618, in Baum
Grigsby, 177.

V.

CASES COMMENTED ON.

Change of Venue-People v. Lee, 5 Cal. 353, in People v. Graham, 265.

Diversion of Water, when not an Appropriation-Maeris v. Bicknell, 7 Cal. 261; Ortman v. Dixon, 13 Cal. 33, in McKinney v. Smith, 381.

Executors may Recover in Ejectment-Meeks v. Harris, 20 Cal. 620, in Hart v. Robin son, 348. Sale of Property under Will-Payne v. Payne, 18 Cal. 291, in White v. Moses, 44.

Foreclosure, Decree in-Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 314, in Montgomery v. Middlemiss, 107.

Intervention-Heyneman v. Dannenberg, 6 Cal. 376; Dixey v. Pollock, 8 Id. 570; Horn v. Volcano W. Co., 13 Cal. 62, in Speyer v. Ihmels, 287.

Judgment, Recitals in-Gregory v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 591, in S. C. 446.

Law of the Case-Table Mt. Tun. Co. v. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198, in S. C. 551.

New Matter-Frisch v. Caler, 71, in Goddard v. Fulton, 436.

New Promise-Barron v. Kennedy, 17 Cal. 574, in Peña v. Vance, 149.

Order not Appealable-Adams v. Woods, 18 Cal. 30, in S. C. 165.

Pueblo Lands-Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530, in White v. Moses, 42.

San Francisco-Holland v. San Francisco, 7 Cal. 361; Argenti v. Same, 16 Id. 282; McCracken v. Same, Id. 591; Grogan v. Same, 18 Cal. 608, in Pimental v. San Francisco, 362.

Setting aside Execution Sale-Bryan v. Berry, 8 Cal. 135, in San Francisco v. Pixley,

59.

Sureties in Replevin Liable-Chambers v. Waters, 7 Cal. 390; Ginaca v. Atwood, 8 Cal. 446, in Mills v. Gleason, 279.

Survey of Public Lands-Cornwall v. Culver, 16 Cal. 429, in Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 577.

Tenants in Common-Riley v. Heisch, 18 Cal. 198, in Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 582.

CASES OVERRULED.

Action Lies against Executor to Foreclose Mortgage against Estate-Ellison v. Halleck, 6 Cal. 386; Faulkner v. Folsom's Executors, Id. 412, in Fallon v. Butler, 30.

Possession of Tenant is Notice of Title of Landlord-Smith v. Doll, 13 Cal. 510, in

Dutton v. Warschauer, 628. That an agreement between A. and B. that A. shall pay B's. debt to C., cannot be enforced in an action by C. for want of privityMcLaren v. Hutchinson, 18 Caf. 80, in Lewis v. Covillaud, 189,

CERTIORARI.

1. CERTIORARI IN SUPREME COURT.-The Supreme Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari where its issuance would be the exercise of an original jurisdiction to superintend the proceedings of an inferior tribunal. Miliken v. Huber, 166.

2. CERTIORARI IN DISTRICT COURT.-The general power of supervision over inferior tribunals which pertains to the Court of King's Bench in England pertains to the District Courts in this State. Id.

3. CERTIORARI IN SUPREME COURT.-Nor can a writ of certiorari be issued by the Supreme Court where the act would be the exercise of appellate power, provided the review might have been had by an appeal, although the right of appeal is gone by the lapse of the time within which it was, by statute, required to be taken. Id. 4. CERTIORARI, WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED ON.—Semble, that no proceeding can be brought up for review by writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, unless it be one properly the subject of an appeal but for which no right of appeal has been provided by law Id.

5. IDEM-WHEN WRIT WILL NOT LIE.-H. against whom a judgment had been rendered in the District Court, after the lapse of more than one year thereafter applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the District Court by which the judgment might be brought up for review, alleging that the Court below had excceded its jurisdiction by rendering the judgment against him without having obtained jurisdiction of his person: Held, that the case was not one in which the Court had power to issue the writ. Id.

COMPOSITION.

See FRAUD AND STATUTE OF FRAUDS, 1; CREDITOR AND DEBTOR, 1.

CONSIDERATION.

See DEED, 2.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. JUDICIARY SYSTEM-CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.-The purpose and effect of article six of the amendments to the Constitution recently adopted is not to suspend the administration of any portion of the laws of the State, but to provide a judiciary system which will go into operation when the necessary officers shall be elected pursuant to laws to be hereafter enacted, and to continue the former judiciary system in force until the new one shall be in a condition to exercise its functions. In re Oliverez, 415.

2. IDEM-ORGANIZATION OF NEW COURTS.-The Courts of Sessions continue as organized Courts with their jurisdiction unimpaired, notwithstanding the adoption of the constitutional amendments, until the organization of the new Courts by which, as provided in those amendments, they are to be superseded. Id.

8. AMENDMENT, EFFECT OF ON ORIGINAL PROVISIONS.-The old provisions of the Constitution will cease to have effect from time to time as the substituted provisions commence to operate. Id.

CONTRACT.

1. CONTRACT WITH MUTUAL COVENANTS, TO BE EXECUTED BY ALL.-A contract, purporting to be made between several parties, containing mutual covenants of which