v. Stokes, 32 N. J. Law, 249; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515, 13 N. W. 485; Chambers v. Short, 79 Mo. 204; Greenhood v. Keator, 9 Ill. App. 183; Holland v. Van Beil, 89 Ga. 223, 15 S. E. 302. The case of Butler v. Dorman, 68 Mo. 298, was where a traveling agent sold goods by sample, but was not intrusted with the goods sold; and, some time after taking the order and transmitting it, the agent requested that the buyer pay him, and said he would credit the same on the bill of the goods sold. The buyer paid the agent. Suit was brought by the firm against the buyer, and testimony was offered showing that the agent's authority ended with the taking of the order, and that he had no right to receive the money. The court held that the purchaser paid the agent at his peril, and it devolved upon him to show that the commercial traveler had authority to collect the money. Clark v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298; Greenhood v. Keator, 9 Ill. App. 183.

It does not appear that the plaintiffs knew of the pretended contract made with Butler, to the effect that the goods were to be delivered in Salt Lake City within 10 or 12 days, at the time the order was accepted and nearly all of the goods shipped. No such agreement was contained in the written order forwarded to plaintiffs. The order was written and dated August 5th, and most of the goods were shipped August 11th; and the defendant was then notified that the balance of the goods were out of stock, but would be shipped very soon. Defendant wrote to plaintiffs, complaining about not receiving the goods, and claiming that he was injured thereby, and asked that they be forwarded; but nothing is said in the letter about the contract to ship the goods in 10 or 12 days. So, by accepting the order, and shipping the goods in part, without any notice of any agreement with the drummer that they should be delivered within 10 or 12 days, the plaintiffs did not ratify or adopt the acts, statements, or agreements of Butler, if made, to deliver the goods in 10 or 12 days.. Butler had no right to make such a contract, and it was not communicated to the plaintiffs. chine Co. v. Ashley, 60 Ala. 496.

Ma

It is my opinion that the first, second, and third findings of fact are entirely unsupported by the evidence, and that the uncontradicted testimony in the case is contrary to, and insufficient to justify, and does not support, such findings.

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. v. DUNHAM. (S. F. 1,295.) (Supreme Court of California. Aug. 7, 1899.) Department 2. Appeal from superior court, city and county of San Francisco. Action to quiet title by John H. Dunham against the city and county of San Francisco. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. W. B.

Sharp, for appellant. H. T. Cresswell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The question for decision in this case is the same as in City and County of San Francisco v. Sharp (S. F. 1,208) 58 Pac. 173, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in that case, the judgment here appealed from is affirmed.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. SHARP et al. (S. F. 1,734.) (Supreme Court of California. Aug. 7, 1899.) Depart ment 2. Appeal from superior court, city and county of San Francisco. Action to quiet title by Eliza M. Sharp and others against the city and county of San Francisco. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. E. G. Knapp, for appellant. Jas. L. Gallagher and H. T. Cresswell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The same question is involved in this case as in City and County of San Francisco v. Sharp (S. F. 1.208) 58 Pac. 173. For the reasons stated in the decision of that case, this day filed, the judgment here appealed from is affirmed.

CURTIN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. (S. F. 2,040.) (Supreme Court of California. Sept. 22, 1899.) In bank. Petition by D. A. Curtin against the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco and J. C. B. Hebbard, the judge of said court, for a writ of review to declare a judgment void. Granted. Cannon & Freeman, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM. The said D. A. Curtin, on the 4th day of August, 1899, having made application to this court for a writ of review to be issued to said respondent, desiring to have reviewed and declared void a certain judgment rendered by said court on the 29th day of July, 1899, which said judgment is particularly described in said petition, and was in an action pending in court on appeal from the justice's court of San Francisco, wherein said Curtin was plaintiff and Marie Cassou and Joseph Cassou were defendants; and whereas, in said petition for the writ of review, said Curtin set out at large what he claimed to be the record which he desired to have certified to this court for review; and whereas, the respondent now appearing in this court assents to said statement as true; and whereas, it appears therefrom that said judgment is void because said court had no jurisdiction or power to render said judgment, and respondent assenting thereto, it is therefore considered and decreed that said judgment be, and the same is, set aside, vacated, and declared void, and the said court is directed to proceed to hear and determine said appeal as though no such judgment had been entered.

HARVEY v. QUEVAS et al. (L. A. 489.) (Supreme Court of California. Oct. 4, 1899.) In bank. Action by J. Downey Harvey against Jose Quevas and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. This case and Harvey v. Barker (L. A. 490; just decided) 58 Pac. 692, involve similar propositions, and were argued and submitted together. Upon the authority of that case the judgment herein is affirmed.

SHEEHAN v. SULLIVAN et al. (S. F. 918.) (Supreme Court of California. Sept. 23, 1899.) In bank. Action by Ellen Sheehan against Margaret Sullivan and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant Margaret Sullivan appeals separately. Reversed.

PER CURIAM. This is the appeal of defendant Margaret Sullivan on a transcript identical

with the transcript in S. F. 917. She appealed separately from the other defendants. Precisely the same questions arise in both appeals. Upon the authority of the decision in S. F. 917 (this day filed) 58 Pac. 543, the judgment and order are reversed.

SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. BELL. (S. F. 1,720.) (Supreme Court of California. Aug. 2, 1899.) In bank. Appeal from superior_court, Fresno county. Action by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company against Isaac T. Bell. Judg ment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Wm. Singer, Jr., and H. V. Reardon, for appellant. W. B. Wallace, for respondent. PER CURIAM. On the authority of Railroad Co. v. Wood (Cal.) 57 Pac. 388, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

WILLIAMS et al. v. CASEBEER. (L. A. 514.) (Supreme Court of California. Sept. 14, 1899.) Department 2. Appeal from superior court, Santa Barbara county. Action by Kate Sonoma Williams and her husband, Isaac B. Williams, against J. W. Casebeer, for malicious prosecution. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed. B. F. Thomas and J. W. Taggart, for appellant. S. E. Crew and Wm. J. Hunsaker, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. For the reasons given in the opinion filed this day in L. A. 611 (same title; 58 Pac. 380), the judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTSON v. PEOPLE. (Supreme Court of Colorado. July 17, 1899.) Error to district court, Pueblo county. Tom Robertson was convicted of unlawfully keeping open a saloon on Sunday, and brings error. Affirmed. Arrington & McAliney and C. E. & F. Herrington, for plaintiff in error. David M. Campbell, Atty. Gen., Calvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dan B. Carey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

PER CURIAM. This case, in its facts and the law applicable thereto, in no essential respect differs from Cardillo v. People (decided at this term) 58 Pac. 678. The decision there governs here, and the judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed.

In re SWEENEY. (Supreme Court of Colorado. July 17, 1899.) Original application by William E. Sweeney for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner discharged. Walcott & Vaile, John M. Waldron, C. W. Waterman, C. H. Toll, and W. W. Field, for petitioner. Booth M. Malone, Dist. Atty., Daniel Prescott, Asst. Dist. Atty., David M. Campbell, Atty. Gen., Calvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan B. Carey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas M. Patterson, and John H. Murphy, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. William E. Sweeney has filed his petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he asks for his discharge from illegal custody. He was the agent of the owner of a smelter, and in such capacity employed Thomas A. Morgan to work therein for more than eight hours a day. At the preliminary examination before a justice of the peace upon the charge of making a contract for such employment, he was bound over to the next term of the district court of Arapahoe county, and in default of giving the required bail was committed to jail. Our decision in Re Morgan 58 Pac. 1071, a like proceeding by the employé, holding void the so-called eight-hour act upon which both this and that prosecution were based, is decisive of this proceeding. In the opinion in that case will be found a full discussion of the questions involved, and there is no necessity for a repetition here. Petitioner's restraint of his liberty

being unauthorized, let orders be entered granting the writ of habeas corpus as prayed for, and discharging the petitioner from further custody.

CITY OF IOLA v. SUGG. (Supreme Court of Kansas. Nov. 11, 1899.) Appeal from court of appeals, Southern department, Eastern division.

J. W. Sugg was convicted of keeping a dog in the city of Iola without a license, and appeals. Appeal dismissed. Oscar Foust & Son, for appellant. J. F. Thompson and Travis Morse, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted in the police court of the city of Iola on the charge of unlawfully keeping and owning a certain dog, without having the name and description of the animal registered with the city clerk in the dog register, and without having paid the annual tax thereon, contrary to the provisions of an or nance of said city. He appealed to the district court, and was again convicted, which last judg ment was affirmed by the court of appeals. 56 Pac. 541. We fully concur in the opinion of that court in the case. There is nothing in the record requiring this court to assume jurisdiction under section 31, c. 84 of the General Statutes of 1897. Erb v. Morasch, 60 Kan. 251, 56 Pac. 133. The appeal and proceedings in error will be dismissed.

ANTHONY INV. CO. v. LAW et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Harper county; G. W. McKay, Judge. Action between the Anthony Investment Company and Leroy Law and Dora Law. From the judgment the company brings error. Affirmed. A. C Richardson and S. W. Shattuck, Jr., for plaintiff in error. W. S. Cade, for defendants in er

ror.

PER CURIAM. This case was tried in the court below upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. The errors assigned are: "(1) Said court erred in finding against the plaintiff in error and in favor of the defendants in error. (2) Said court erred in rendering judgment against the plaintiff in error and in favor of the defendants in error." After consideration of the record and the errors assigned, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

ATTICA STATE BANK v. BENSON et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Harper county; G. W. McKay, Judge. Action between the Attica State Bank and L. E. Benson and Henry Shannon. From the judgment the bank brings error. Dismissed. George B. Crooker and T. A. Noftzger, for plaintiff in error. Sankey & Campbell and W. S. Cade, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. The motion for a new trial in this case was overruled, and judgment rendered, on April 15, 1893. A summons in error was issued out of the supreme court on April 21, 1894, and served upon Henry Shannon April 27. 1894. An undated waiver of the issuance and service of summons in error upon Benson by his attorneys was filed with the clerk of the supreme court on May 29, 1894. The filing of a petition is not, of itself, the commencement of an action. A summons must issue, or a waiver thereof be executed. Not having been done within one year from the ruling upon the motion for a new trial, the motion to dismiss will be sustained.

Action by the Bittman-Todd Grocer Company against Samuel Bishop and others. Judgment for plaintiff. From the denial of an order, it brings error. Affirmed. T. L. Davis, for plaintiff in error. Holmes & Haymaker, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Greenwood county, wherein the motion of plaintiff in error, asking that certain proceeds of certain attached_property be applied on its judgment against J. W. Bishop. was overruled. No questions of law or authorities are cited by plaintiff in error. From our examination of the record as presented to this court, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

BRIGHAM et al. v. JANSEN et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Oct. 12, 1899.) Error from district court, Lyon county; W. A. Randolph, Judge. Action between J. W. Brigham & Co. and others and Jansen & Freyschlag and others. From the judgment Brigham & Co. bring error. Reversed. J. G. Hutchison, for plaintiffs in error. Cunningham & McCarty, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. The supreme court, in the case of Brigham v. Jones, 48 Kan. 162, 30 Pac. 113, have construed the instrument in controversy in this case to be a general assignment, instead of a mortgage. The trial court in the case at bar held it to be a mortgage. Should the supreme court desire to change their conclusion, they now have the opportunity. We do not care to do it for them. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

CAREY V. KANSAS & T. COAL CO.__(Court of Appeals of Kansas. Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Reno county; F. L. Martin, Judge. Action by the Kansas & Texas Coal Company against Emmerson Carey. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. C. M. Williams, for plaintiff in error. C. V. Ferguson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The only question presented in this case is, did the trial court err in sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to the evidence of defendant? We are satisfied, from an examination of the record, that it did not. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

CITY OF TOPEKA v. MYERS. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, E. D. July 18, 1899.) Error from district court, Shawnee county; Z. T. Hazen, Judge. Action between the city of Topeka and Elizabeth Myers. From the judgment the city brings error. Motion to dismiss denied. W. A. S. Bird, for plaintiff in error. D. C. Tillotson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss must be denied. It is founded upon an apparent clerical error, which we have authorized to be corrected. The case was filed in this court within the year. The motion is therefore without foundation, and is denied.

COLUMBUS BUGGY CO. v. BOOTH. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, E. D. Nov. 15, 1899.) Error from district court, Montgomery county; A. H._Skidmore, Judge. Action by the Columbus Buggy Company against Charles W. Booth. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. J. B. Ziegler, for plaintiff in error. Albert L. Wilson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action in replevin, brought by the Columbus Buggy Company against Charles W. Booth to recover three bug

gies, one phaeton, and one road wagon. The case was tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff below brings the case here for review. It is contended that the trial court erred in excluding competent and in admitting incompetent testimony, and that the court erred in the instructions to the jury and in overruling the motion of plaintiff for a new trial. The errors assigned have been considered, but they are not sufficient to justify a reversal of the case. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

CROTTS et al. V. CARPENTER et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Sept. 16, 1899.) Error from district court, Reno county; F. L. Martin, Judge. Action by T. J. Crotts and others against F. H. Carpenter and others. From the judgment Crotts and others bring error. Affirmed. D. H. Martin, for plaintiffs in error. M. A. Lowe and W. F. Evans, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a survey made by the county surveyor of Reno county, Kan. The case was tried by the court, and findings of fact and conclusions of law made. But one exception was taken during the trial, which is as follows: "To all of which findings of fact and conclusions of law the plaintiff at the time excepted." The evidence is not before us, but from the findings of fact we find no error in the conclusions of law. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF ARKANSAS CITY v. AMES. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Cowley county; J. A. Burnette, Judge. Action between the First National Bank of Arkansas City, Kan., and Henrietta Ames. From the judgment the bank brings error. Affirmed. Pollock & Lafferty, for plaintiff in error. Chas. L. Brown, for defendant in

error.

PER CURIAM. From an examination of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the issue was fairly submitted to the jury, and that the errors assigned, the entire record considered, are not sufficient to require a reversal of the case. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

HILL V. MIDDLETON, Sheriff. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Butler county; C. W. Shinn, Judge. Action by Theodosia Hill against J. W. Middleton, sheriff of Butler county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. F. L. Jones and Aikman & Aikman, for plaintiff in error. A. L. Redden and N. A. Yeager, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This was an action brought by plaintiff in error in the district court of Butler county against J. W. Middleton, sheriff, for the recovery of the value of certain personal property, claimed by plaintiff, which was taken by the sheriff under executions against E. H. Hill and W. J. Hill. The case was tried to a jury, and verdict returned for the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for costs. Plaintiff below brings the case here for review. The question presented to and determined by the jury involved the validity of the transfer of certain personal property made by W. J. Hill to his mother, the plaintiff in error, at the time or just before the property was levied upon by defendant in error. The errors presented in plaintiff's brief are that the trial court erred in excluding competent evidence offered in behalf of the plaintiff and in admitting improper and incompetent evidence offered by defendant and in giving and in refusing to give

certain instructions. We have carefully examined the record and the errors presented in the brief, and find no error sufficient to compel a reversal of the case. The case was fairly presented to the jury upon competent testimony. The instructions present the law applicable to the facts. There is no question of law presented that has not been passed upon by our supreme court. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

NATIONAL BANK OF PAOLA et al. v. BECKETT. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, E. D. Oct. 19, 1899.) Error from district court, Miami county; John T. Burris, Judge, Action by Ada Beckett against the National Bank of Paola and L. C. Gilmore. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed. Shoddy & Snoddy and B. F. Simpson, for plaintiffs in error. John C. Sheridan, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This action was commenced by Mrs. Beckett to recover from the plaintiffs in error for the conversion of certain notes and the proceeds thereof. The plaintiffs in error accepted the notes from Mrs. Beckett for collection, required her to indorse them, and the most of them were in her name. They now claim that the notes belonged to the estate of J. E. Gilmore (the former husband of Mrs. Beckett), and that no administrator or executor of his estate had been appointed. The plaintiffs in error are not creditors of J. E. Gilmore, and, having received the notes from the defendant in error for collection, the doctrine announced in Presbury v. Pickett, 1 Kan. App. 631, 42 Pac. 495, does not apply. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

ROYSE, Sheriff, v. HARRIS et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Sedgwick county; D. M. Dale, Judge. Action by B. R. Royse, sheriff of Sedgwick county, against Allen M. Harris and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. Joseph A. Brubacher and J. D. Houston, for plaintiff in error. Sankey & Campbell, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action commenced by plaintiff in error in the court below to restrain the collection of a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. The case was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, and the injunction denied. We are satisfied, from an examination of the pleadings, the statement of facts, and the authorities cited, that the judgment of the district court should not be disturbed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

ST. JOSEPH LOAN & TRUST CO. v. DANE et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Reno county; Z. L. Wise, Judge pro tem. Action between St. Joseph Loan & Trust Company and Joseph B. Dane and others. From the judgment the conpany brings error. Affirmed. H. Whiteside, for plaintiff in error. C. M. Williams, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. It is clear, from the record before us and from the briefs of counsel, that no question of law is presented for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and must, therefore, be affirmed.

SNYDER v. LONG-BELL LUMBER CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Sumner county; J. A. Burnette,

Judge. Action by the Long-Bell Lumber Company and others against F. M. Snyder. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Modified. Frank H. Foster, for plaintiff in error. W. R. Cowley and C. E. Elliott, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action commenced in the district court of Sumner county to foreclose a material man's lien. Several errors are assigned, but we find no error sufficient to compel a reversal. The judgment should be modified. The court rendered a judgment for a lien upon the whole section, when, in fact, the lien sought to be foreclosed only described the S. W. 4 and the S. E. 4 of section 2, township 32, range 3 W. of the sixth P. M., Sumner county, Kan. The case will be remanded, and the district court instructed to enter decree declaring the amount due a lien upon the undivided one-half interest of the S. W. 4 and the S. E. 14 of section 2, township 32, range 3 W. of the sixth P. M., Sumner county, Kan.

PER CURIAM. The defendants were convicted in the district court of Reno county, Kan., of maintaining a nuisance under the prohibitory liquor law, and appeal to this court. We have carefully examined the record and briefs, and conclude that the trial court committed no error that would authorize a reversal of the case. We can serve no good purpose by discussing the points raised, as they must be determined by applying legal principles frequently adjudicated by this and the supreme court. judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The

STOCK EXCH. BANK OF CALDWELL v. BURNETTE. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error from district court, Sumner county; James A. Ray, Judge. Action between the Stock Exchange Bank of Caldwell, Kan., and S. C. Burnette, administrator of E. C. Shipley. From the judgment the bank brings error. Affirmed. W. W. Schwinn and J. A. Burnette, for plaintiff in error. P. C. Simons, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is overruled. We have examined the briefs and the record carefully, and are satisfied the judg ment of the district court is correct, and should be affirmed. The brief of the plaintiff in error does not contain a full citation of the authorities, and the defendant in error has only briefed the motion to dismiss. An extended opinion will not be of sufficient interest to justify the court in briefing the case more fully. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

TODD v. CITY OF ATCHISON et al. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, E. D. July 18, 1899.) Error from district court, Atchison county. Action by Clotilde H. Todd against the city of Atchison and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Motion to advance denied. J. T. Allensworth, for plaintiff in error. Clifton B. Holbert, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. We see nothing in this case which would warrant the court in making it an exception, by advancing it upon the docket of the court for an early hearing. The fact that the plaintiff in error has presented a question as to the power of a city to create a lien upon a homestead to pay for improvement of a street

upon which the property is situated, and the further fact that there may be other cases involving the same question, does not make it one so involving questions of public interest as to require us to give it preference over other cases on the docket. The motion to advance ought to be, and is hereby, denied.

WILSON v. THOMPSON. (Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, C. D. Oct. 12, 1899.) Error from district court, Lyon county; W. A. Randolph, Judge. Action between J. W. Wilson and William Thompson. From an order granting a new trial, Wilson brings error. Affirmed. E. W. Cunningham, for plaintiff in error. Chas. B. Graves, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The district court granted a new trial in this action on account of newly-discovered evidence. We are unable to say that the trial court erred in its conclusion upon questions of law, or abused its discretion, to an extent authorizing a reversal of its ruling. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

TRADERS' INS. CO. v. BARTLETT et al. (Supreme Court of New Mexico. Aug. 28, 1899.) Error to district court, Valencia county; before Justice N. C. Collier. Action by Bartlett & Tyler against the Traders' Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. R. W. D. Bryan (Sylvester G. Williams, on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Childers & Dobson, for defendants in er

ror.

PER CURIAM. The facts in this case are practically identical with those in the case of Assurance Co. v. Bartlett (just decided) 58 Pac. 351, except that the answer of the garnishee discloses that its liability for loss on the policy of insurance which it had issued to Mrs. Holmes was the sum of $623.40. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below, and order that the plaintiff in error pay to the defendant in error the sum of $623.40, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the 29th day of November, 1897, and 10 per cent. on the amount of such judgment as damages, together with

costs.

FRENCH-GLENN LIVE-STOCK CO. v. COLWELL. (Supreme Court of Oregon. Aug. 11, 1899.) Appeal from circuit court, Harney county; Morton D. Clifford, Judge. Action by the French-Glenn Live-Stock Company against James Colwell. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. W. Lair Hill, for appellant. Lionel R. Webster, for respond

ent.

WOLVERTON, C. J. The facts in this case are in all respects similar to those in the case of Live-Stock Co. v. Springer (just decided) 58 Pac. 102, except the plaintiff offered no oral evidence in support of its claim, as was done in the Springer Case, but relied entirely upon the record evidence to sustain its title to the premises demanded. The defendant adduced like proof as in the Springer Case, and the cause was submitted to a jury upon the issues of fact thus presented. The instructions were of like character, and the verdict and judgment was for defendant. This state of the controversy presents in a little different form, but of no material moment, the main question determined in the Springer Case, which requires an affirmance of the judgment below; and it is so ordered.

STATE V. McKEE. (Supreme Court of Utah. Oct. 1, 1898.) Appeal from district court, Uinta county. George McKee was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court, sitting in the county of Uinta, Utah, convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny, and sentencing him to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of four years. The effect of the evidence in this case is the same as that in the case of State v. McKee (decided at the June term) 53 Pac. 733. The opinion in that case is decisive of this. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

CUNNINGHAM v. SPOKANE HYDRAULIC MIN. CO. (Supreme Court of Washington. Oct. 11, 1899.) Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; William E. Richardson, Judge. Action by Clarence Cunningham against the Spokane Hydraulic Mining Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed. Affirmed. Stephens & Bunn, for appellant. Heyburn, Price, Heyburn & Doherty, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This is the third time that this case has been before the court, and an investigation of the record convinces us that all the controlling questions now involved have been passed upon in the prior decisions rendered. 52 Pac. 235; 55 Pac. 756. In addition, with our view of the law governing this case and the testimony introduced, there seems to be no defense to the action, either equitable or legal. judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

The

EVERETT LAND CO. v. YORK et al. (Supreme Court of Washington. Oct. 20, 1899.) Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid, Judge. Action by the Everett Land Company against H. G. York and the county of Snohomish to restrain the collection of certain taxes. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Francis H. Brownell, for appellant. J. H. Naylor, for respondent Snohomish county. Coleman & Hart, for respondent York.

PER CURIAM. This action was brought to restrain the collection of certain taxes levied upon the property of plaintiff. The lower court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the plaintiff, standing by his pleading and refusing to amend, brought the case here upon appeal. An examination of the complaint convinces us that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment is affirmed.

RUCKER et al. v. YORK, County Treasurer. (Supreme Court of Washington. Oct. 20, 1899.) Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid. Judge. Action by Wyatt J. Rucker and another against H. G. York, as treasurer of Snohomish county, to restrain the collection of certain taxes. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. Crowley & Grosscup and Bell & Austin, for appellants. Coleman & Hart, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The complaint in this action is in all respects identical with that in No. 3,033 (Land Co. v. York, ubi supra), with the exception of the property involved. Following the disposition of that cause, the judgment in this will be affirmed.