« ПредишнаНапред »
idated Min. Co. v. (Nev.).......... 480
Roberts, McKinney v. (Cal.)
600 Spencer v. Houghton (Cal.)..
718 Sprague v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
Rodgers v. Central Pac. R. Co. (Cal.) 377
Rutherford, Adams v. (Or.)................ 896
St. Louis, F. S. & W. R. Co., Cohen
Sample v. Sample (Kan.).... .... 248
Soher, Ganahl v. (Cal.)..
Soldati, Taylor v. (Cal.)...
Solomon R. Co. v. Jones (Kan.)..... 730
Co. v. Community Ditch & Reservoir Co. (Colo.)...
San Francisco Stock & Exchange
Savage v. Savage (Or.)....
Schermerhorn v. Mahaffie (Kan.)... 199
State v. Gormally (Kan.).
State v. Gray (Nev.)....
Schiefferly v. Tapia (Cal.).
State v. Harris (Nev.)...
Schmidt, State v. (Kan.)
State v. Head (Kan.)...
Schneider v. Sears (Or.)
841 State v. Horton (Nev.)....
Schneider, In re (Or.)...
State v. Iseman (Kan.).
Stratton v. Graham (Cal.).
State v. Schmidt (Kan.)..
867 Tidball, Williams v. (Ariz.)...............
State v. School-district No. 3 (Kan.) 208 Tom Louey, State v. (Or.).
State v. Showers (Kan.).
State v. Skinner (Kan.)... State v. Smith (Or.)...
State v. Snyder (Kan.)..
. State v. Tatlow (Kan.)...
474 Toomey v. Reilly (Cal.). 420 Tucker v. McCoy (Colo.)...... 343 Turner Casing Co., Anglo-American 860 Packing, etc., Co. v. (Kan.)....... 403 267 Tyrrell, Hobart v. (Cal.)............ 525
353 United States V. Christofferson 478 (Ariz.).....
State, Atchison Nat. Bank v. (Kan.)
State, Roberts v. (Kan.)..
Steele, Case v (Kan.).. Steiger, Lewis v. (Cal.).. Stevens, People v. (Cal.).. Stewart v. Taylor (Cal.).. Stewart, McClung v. (Or.). Stinson v. Portes (Or.).. Stone, Bullard v. (Cal.)..
295 United States v. Kemp (Ariz.)...... 295 United States v. Tenney (Ariz.)..... 295
Vaca Valley R. Co., Butcher v. (Cal.) 174 Vernia, City of Denver v. (Colo.)... 656 242 Victor M. & M. Co., Martin v. (Nev.) 161 884
Strother, People v. (Cal.).
383 Watson, Meade v. (Cal.).........311, 314
Strother, Smith v. (Cal.).
Wattier v. Miller (Or.).
Sullivan v. Phoenix Ins. Co. of
Webster, State v. (Kan.)..
Weck, Wyrick v. (Cal.). . .
Sullivan, People v. (Cal.)...
Western News Co. v. Wilmarth
Sulphur Bank Quicksilver Min. Co.,
County of Lake v. (Cal.)....
Wheeler, In re (Kan.)..
Sun Ins. Co., Enos v. (Cal.).
Wheeler, Kirkpatrick v. (Colo.)...
Superior Court, Bradley v. (Cal.)... Superior Court, Hall v. (Cal.)... Superior Court, Hall v. (Cal.).
White v. Douglass (Cal.).
White, Schnider v. (Or.)
Williams v. Tidball (Ariz.)
Superior Court, Hirschfeld v. (Cal.). Superior Court, Myrick v. (Cal.).. Surryhne, Myres v. (Cal.)...
Swain, In re Estate of (Cal.)..
Sweeney v. Schultes (Nev.).
Sweeney v. Stanford (Cal.).
Swift v. San Francisco Stock & Ex
change Board (Cal.).....
Tapia, Schiefferly_v. (Cal.).
Taylor v. Central Pac. R. Co. (Cal.) 436
Woffenden v. Charaleau (Ariz.).
94 Wood v. Brady (Cal.).
Wood v. Dickinson (Kan.)..
Woolf, Cahn v. (Kan.)..
Taylor v. Middleton (Cal.)..
Woolf, Hargrove v. (Kan.)...... Wright v. Central California Water Co. (Cal.).....
Taylor v. Soldati (Cal.).
Thorne v. Ornauer (Colo.).. ....... 568 Zimmerman v. Knox (Kan.)....... 104
621 Zellerbach, Cross v. (Cal.).
1. ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT-EFFECT ON PERSON NOT PARTY.
A party in one action is not bound by allegations in a complaint in another action to which he is not party.
2. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
No error appearing in the record, judgment affirmed.
Department 2. Appeal from superior court, Los Angeles county. F. H. Howard and J. R. Scott, for appellant.
David Lyon and Howard & Roberts, for respondents.
FOOTE, C. Action on four promissory notes. Appeal from the judgment for plaintiff, and the order denying defendant a new trial. The complaint stated a cause of action, and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled. From the findings of the court it appeared that recovery on the first note was, as claimed in the answer, barred by limitation under section 337, Code Civil Proc. The recitals of facts in those findings negative the existence of all other defenses set up in the answer; and the material issues raised by the pleadings were considered and passed upon. The evidence, although in some respects conflicting, sustains the findings, and they support the judgment. The court reserved its ruling upon an objection made by the plaintiff to the admission in evidence of a complaint filed in another action by E. A. Mellus, assignee of Adelida Alexander, against Lalla Mellus, and which the defendant claims has never been ruled upon. A ruling should have been made upon that objection, but the defendant here suffered no injury. That complaint was incompetent as eviv.SP,no.1-1