64 Cal. 469-471. TIMES PUBLISHING CO. v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA.

Delinquent Tax List must be published under contract with supervisors, p. 471.

Approved in Jolly v. Latah Co., 5 Idaho, 303, 304, county assessor and collector cannot fix by contract compensation of publisher for print. ing delinquent tax list. Distinguished in Journal etc. Co. v. Whitney, 97 Cal. 284, holding power to contract therefor given to tax collector under county government act of 1891; but see Smeltzer v. Miller, 113 Cal. 166, 167, holding power of supervisors restored by amendments of 1895 to Political Code.

64 Cal. 472-473. MCLAUGHLIN v. DEL RE. S. C. 71 Cal. 230, 232. Jury Trial is improper in action to enjoin diversion of water although damages also asked, p. 473.

To same effect in Fish v. Benson, 71 Cal. 435, as to cross-complaint to cancel conveyance under which suit brought; Churchill v. Baumann, 104 Cal. 372, as to action similar to main case; Richardson v. Eureka, 110 Cal. 446, on point that findings are necessary in action to abate nuisance, unless waived; Churchill v. Louie, 135 Cal. 612, further holding case not within section 664, Code of Civil Procedure; McCarthy v. Gaston etc. Co., 144 Cal. 546, holding verdict merely advisory in action for abatement of nuisance.

64 Cal. 473-475. PALACHE v. HUNT.

Mandamus.-Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction of proceedings in, p. 474.

Cited in People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 109, sustaining its appellate jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings when fine of five thousand dollars demanded; Heinlen v. Phillips, 88 Cal. 559, ruling similarly as to proceedings in certiorari; Knowles v. Thompson, 133 Cal. 248, denying second application for mandamus, because remedy by appeal was adequate.

64 Cal. 475-476. WILSON v. BAKER.

Injunction will not lie against proceedings of court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, p. 476.

To same effect in Waymire v. Railway Co., 112 Cal. 651, as to injunction of foreclosure proceedings by stockholders on ground of fraud in its execution by their corporation; Wolfe v. Titus, 124 Cal. 269, quoting Waymire v. Railway Co., 112 Cal. 651; Scott v. Runner, 146 Ind. 16, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348, as to injunction of execution because judgment void.

64 Cal. 481-485. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. LUX. Taxation. Decedent's Personalty is taxable at situs of residence at death irrespecitve of its actual situs, p. 483.

To same effect in Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 397, 400, on point that mortgage bonds belonged to resident are taxable here although secured by property elsewhere; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 612, noted under People v. Parks, 23 Cal. 138; Mackay v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 681, holding foreign railroad bonds in name of nonresident trustee of decedent taxable at trustee's residence. Note citations: Buck v. Miller, 62 Am. St. Rep. 461, 466, on general subject.

64 Cal. 487-488. HOWARD v. STRATTON.

Parol Evidence is admissible to show discharge of note by performance of conditions to that end, p. 488.

To same effect in Schultz v. Noble, 77 Cal. 81, admitting similar parol evidence; and Bank v. Blum, 26 Or. 52, where note was given merely as security for maker's performance of his contract; Norman v. Waite, 30 Neb. 316, admitting contemporaneous parol agreement constituting condition for performance of main agreement; Clark v. Ducheneau, 26 Utah, 103, where in action on note defendant admitted execution, parol evidence that it was given not for loan, but to secure performance of defendant's verbal agreement to purchase stock for plaintiff, and was to be surrendered on delivery of stock, and that agreement had been performed, was admissible.

64 Cal. 489-491. PAIGE v. CARTER.

Note.-Date of delivery may be shown to be other than date of note when issue material, p. 489.

To same effect in Collins v. Driscoll, 69 Cal. 551, admitting evidence where bar by limitation involved.

Counterclaim must be claim existing at commencement of action, p. 490.

To same effect in Lyon v. Petty, 65 Cal. 325, where barred at such time; McGuire v. Edsall, 14 Mont. 360, where accruing after such time.

64 Cal. 492-493. KORNAHRENS v. HIS CREDITORS.

Dismissal of Action for want of prosecution is within discretion of court, p. 492.

To the same effect in People v. Jeffords, 126 Cal. 300, noted under Dupuy v. Shear, 29 Cal. 238; Hassey v. Homestead etc. Assn., 102 Cal 613, 614, sustaining dismissal under facts. Note citations: Grigsby v. Napa Co., 95 Am. Dec. 215, on general subject.

64 Cal. 498-503. PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS.

Dedication is not effected until acceptance by public of offer to dedi. cate, p. 502.

To same effect in Hayward v. Manzer, 70 Cal. 480, where map showing streets was filed and recorded by owner; Payne v. English, 79 Cal. 548, where statute passed by state, owner of property, as in main case; People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 77, 79, 15 Am. St. Rep. 28, 30, where lots sold by reference to unrecorded map; Niles v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 577, noted under Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 648.

64 Cal. 503-504. BLOOM v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Claim against City for damages need not be presented to supervisors before suit thereon, p. 504.

To same effect in Spangler v. San Francisco, 84 Cal. 20, 18 Am. St. Rep. 164, as to damages for overflow from defective sewer.

64 Cal. 504-511. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. FLOOD. Taxation.-Description of Property is sufficient if following statement of owner, p. 506.

To same effect in Savings etc. Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 360, noted under People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 424, noted under People v. Insurance Co., 29 Cal. 533; Lake Co. v. Mining Co., 68 Cal. 15, as to real property descriptions; Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 89, and San Francisco v. Pennie, 93 Cal. 469, 470, 472, each citing main case also as to sufficiency of description in assessment; People v. Railroad Co., 105 Cal. 592 (cited in Central Pacific etc. Co. v. State, 162 U. S. 114, where statement included taxable franchise and omitted untaxable one; Savings and Loan Society v. San Francisco, 146 Cal. 678, arguendo.

Taxation of Mining Stock may be made at situs of owner's residence, although corporate property in another state, p. 507.

Distinguished in San Francisco v. Mackay, 10 Sawy. 435, 22 Fed. Rep. 605, as to assessment under another statute, where corporation was local one.

Equalization of Taxes cannot be made without evidence, p. 508.

To same effect in Savings and Loan Society v. San Francisco, 146 Cal. 678, board of equalization may authorize assessor to change designation of kind or quality of part of personal property from "bonds" to "solvent credits"; Oakland v. S. P. Co., 131 Cal. 230, noted under People v. Reynolds, 28 Cal. 112; Bank v. Board, 97 Cal. 325, further holding recital in order conclusive as to taking of testimony.

Taxation.-Statement of Property must be furnished by owner to assessor to entitle him to protection by courts, p. 509.

To same effect in Board v. Anderson, 68 Fed. Rep. 345 (Mont.), sustaining arbitrary assessment where no statement furnished. Distinguished in People v. Railroad Co., 67 Cal. 627, where assessment void because made when equalization impossible.

64 Cal. 512. DALY v. AH GOON.

Taxation.-Assessment is Void if made to person named, and to all owners or claimants known or unknown, p. 512.

To same effect in Greenwood v. Adams, 80 Cal. 76, holding void a certificate and deed in such form; De Frieze v. Quint, 94 Cal. 660, 28 Am. St. Rep. 154, as to such certificate; Russ v. Crichton, 117 Cal. 703, as to assessment and certificate.

Assessment is Void if not following statutory requirements, p. 512. To same effect in San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, 87 Cal. 502, where not following section 3647, Political Code.

64 Cal. 513-515. TAYLOR v. McLAIN.

Mortgage includes deed given to secure debt although absolute in form, p. 514.

To same effect in Healy v. O'Brien, 66 Cal. 519, holding that legal title does not pass thereunder; and Raynor v. Drew, 72 Cal. 309, Turner v. McDonald, 76 Cal. 180, Smith v. Smith, 80 Cal. 325, Hall v. Arnott, 80 Cal. 352, Murdock v. Clarke, 90 Cal. 442, Brandt v. Thompson, 91 Cal. 461, Moisant v. McPhee, 92 Cal. 79, Kelley v. Leachman, 2 Idaho, 1116, and Adair v. Adair, 22 Or. 131, cited thereunder; Vance v. Anderson, 113 Cal. 538, on point that parol evidence is admissible to show real nature of transaction; Peninsular etc. Co. v. Pacific etc. Co., 123 Cal. 694, and Byrne v. Hudson, 127 Cal. 256, holding mortgage shown under facts stated; Pritchard v. Butler, 4 Idaho, 521, following rule.

Cross-Complaint may be used to assert deed to be such in action brought to redeem from it as mortgage, p. 514. See note to Hurd v. Case, 83 Am. Dec. 254.

64 Cal. 515-519. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. GARCIA. Mexican Grant is segregated on publication and approval of plat and survey, under 12 U. S. Stats. 33, where no application for return to District Court made, p. 518.

To same effect in Railroad Co. v. Dull. 10 Saw. 518, 519, 22 Fed. Rep. 497, in reference to same proceedings.

64 Cal. 519-520. PACIFIC BRIDGE CO. v. KIRKHAM.

Assessment for Local Improvements cannot be exercised by state, p. 520.

To same effect in Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 412, but holding (as in main case) act not subject to such objection; and In re Madera etc. Dist., 92 Cal. 327, 27 Am. St. Rep. 128, discussing assessment under Wright act.

64 Cal. 520-525. SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY v. GERICHTEN. Agency cannot be proved by declarations of alleged agent, p. 524. To same effect in People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 113, as to statement by wife of her direction by husband; Smith v. Insurance Co., 107 Cal. 437, as to statements by detective of his employment by party.

64 Cal. 525-529. EX PARTE SONTAG.

Grand Juror cannot be compelled to state his vote on indictment, p. 527.

See note to Commonwealth v. Green, 12 Am. St. Rep. 918.
General Citation.-Miskimmins v. State, 8 Wyo. 414.

64 Cal. 529-632. EMERIC v. ALVARADO. S. C. 90 Cal. 444, 450, 461, 462, 482.

Appeal from Interlocutory Orders are confined to those enumerated in statute, pp. 549, 629.

To same effect in dissenting opinion Sharon v. Sharon, 67 Cal. 201, discussing appealability of divorce decree.

Partition is Invalid when larger tract included than tract to be divided, p. 580.

To same effect in Hayne v. Gould, 54 Fed. Rep. 969, decreeing sale and not partition under facts. Note citations: Tomlin v. Hilyard, 92 Am. Dec. 127, on agreements for partition.

Estoppel.-Acceptance of lieu deed estops grantees from claiming under originals, p. 587.

To same effect in Sepulveda v. Sepulveda, 77 Cal. 608, decreeing reconveyance of property erroneously covered by such second deed; and see Center v. Davis, 113 Cal. 309, 54 Am. St. Rep. 353, and Chloupek v. Perotka, 89 Wis. 556, 46 Am. St. Rep. 859, when claim of grantee held barred as to additional property in first deed.

Execution Purchaser acquires no title when judgment void, p. 590. To same effect in Sullivan v. Mier, 67 Cal. 266, as to street assess. ment where suit not according to statute.