ON THE CALIFORNIA REPORTS SHOWING THE PRESENT VALUE AS AUTHORITY SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AS DETERMINED THROUGH THE CITATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE COURTS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. BY CHARLES T. BOONE, WILLIAM FOSTER, REVISED TO INCLUDE CITATIONS TO VOLUME 147 INCLUSIVE. CHARLES L. THOMPSON. BOOK II. EMBRACING VOLS. 20-39 CALIFORNIA REPORTS. SAN FRANCISCO: BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1898, by the In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. COPYRIGHT 1905, BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY. COPYRIGHT, 1906, BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY. 95686 VOLUME XX. By ALBERT RAYMOND. Revised to include citations to Volume 147, by CHARLES L. THOMPSON. Powers. Mistakes in execution of, will be corrected by equity, p 35. Cited to same effect in Love v. Sierra Nevada etc. Co., 32 Cal. 652, 91 Am. Dec. 605, enforcing mortgage defectively executed by agent, without reformation; and in Gerdes v. Moody, 41 Cal. 349, as to deed executed in like manner. 20 Cal. 39-45. PHELAN v. SAN FRANCISCO. S. C. Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 9. Law of the Case.-Ruling of supreme court in a case is final adjudication controlling court and parties, p. 44. Cited to same effect in Haynes v. Meeks, 20 Cal. 311, as to regularity of appointment of administrator; Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 416, 417, as to rights under Mexican grant; Lucas v. San Francisco, 28 Cal. 594, as to municipal liability on its contract; Heinlen v. Martin, 59 Cal. 183, as to property rights of parties; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 687, as to marriage; Palmer v. Utah etc. Co., 2 Idaho, 352, and dissenting opinion in Richardson v. Carbon etc. Co., 18 Wash. 475, as to ruling on demurrer; Dodge v. Gaylord, 53 Ind. 372, as to property rights, holding further doctrine not to apply where new and different facts presented (as to which see also Nieto v. Carpenter, 21 Cal. 488, as to construction of decree erroneously translated before, and People v. Hamilton, 103 Cal. 496, as to new points raised, both distinguishing main case); Matthews v. Bank, 100 Fed. 397, denying right on second writ of review to consider construction of contract determined on prior appeal; Haley v. Kirkpatrick, 104 Fed. 648, holding contrary decision of question by another court immaterial as regards application of rule; Adams County v. B. & M. etc. Co., 55 Iowa, 98, as to estoppel, holding, further, that where replication amended on remand, evidence on new trial is restricted to new issues alone; Headley v. Challis, 15 Kan. 606, as to validity of affidavit for publication, holding rule to apply to all questions existing in record and necessarily involved in decision; Meyer v. Shamp, 26 Neb. 731, as to partnership transactions; Portland Trust Co. v. Coulter, 23 Oreg. 134, as to construction of power of attorney, although former decision was in case at law and present one in suit in equity; Lowell v. Ball, 58 Tex. 567, as to family allowance in probate proceeding; Frankland v. Cassaday, 62 Tex. 421, as to construction of conveyances, discussing limitations of rule; dissenting opinion in State v. Circuit Court, 71 Wis. 609, as to imposition of fine, main opinion holding new trial grantable although previous order denying new trial was affirmed on appeal. Distinguished where new facts presented in Nieto v. Carpenter, 21 Cal. 488, and People v. Hamilton, 103 Cal. 496, cited supra; Balch v. Haas, 73 Fed. Rep. 977, as to whether X. was vice-principal or fellowservant; and denied in City v. Foxworthy, 45 Neb. 683, 685, 688, as to re-examination of questions of law on general remand for new trial. Cited also in note to Legg v. Overbagh, 21 Am. Dec. 119, as to power of appellate court after remittitur; and to Gee's Admr. v. Williamson, 27 Am. Dec. 634, on general subject. 20 Cal. 45-48. MITCHELL v. DAVIS. S. C. 23 Cal. 382. Landlord and Tenant.-Agent in care of principal's real estate is not a tenant at will, p. 47. Noted in Cook v. Klenk, 142 Cal. 418, holding such tenancy not established, under facts stated. 20 Cal. 48-50. MINTURN v. BURR. S. C. 16 Cal. 107. Forcible Entry.-Defendant need not be present personally if acts done under his direction, p. 49. Cited in McEvoy v. Igo, 27 Cal. 375, as to evidence, holding complaint insufficient where no force alleged. Verdict.-New trial will be granted where jury acted through mistake as to law or in disregard of evidence, p. 49. Cited on converse of rule in Wyoming etc. Bank v. Dayton, 1 Wyo. 346, affirming verdict. 20 Cal. 50-56. PEOPLE v. JONES. Information in nature of quo warranto lies although incumbent has certificate of election, p. 53. Cited to same effect in Stone v. Elkins, 24 Cal. 127, holding unconstitutional an act providing for trial by supervisors of election contest as to county judge; People v. Holden, 28 Cal. 130, holding this method not abrogated by provisions as to election contests by defeated candidates; McEntire v. Williamson, 63 Kan. 284, on point that regularity of election of officers cannot be collaterally attacked; dissenting opinion in Bonner v. Lynch, 25 La. Ann. 277, main opinion holding commission conclusive as to right to office; and in State v. Owens, 63 Tex. 270, holding further that ballots may be examined by court in such proceeding. Cited, also, in Reynolds v. State, 61 Ind. 410, on point that jury trial may be had therein. 20 Cal. 56-68. SELDEN v. CASHMAN. S. C. 81 Am. Dec. 93, and note 96. Trespass. Exemplary damages are not allowable in, where no wrongful design or willful misconduct shown, p. 67. Cited to same effect in Abbott v. 76 etc. Co., 103 Cal. 611, as to trover, where property taken under attorney's advice; Eisenhart v. Ordean, 3 Colo. App. 170, as to damages for eviction by landlord under facts; and in Wanamaker v. Bowes, 36 Md. 60, where property was seized under void attachment. Cited, also, in notes on general subject to Merrills v. Tariff etc. Co., 27 Am. Dec. 689; Louisville etc. Co. v. Sickings, 96 Am. Dec. 326; and to Pittsburgh etc. Co. v. Lyon, 10 Am. St. Rep. 521; and to Murray v. Mace, 43 Am. St. Rep. 670, as to damages for trespass in execution of writ. 20 Cal. 68-69. BLACK v. SHAW. Appeal.-Death of party after argument necessitates entry of judgment as of date prior to death, p. 68. Cited to same effect in Savings etc. Soc. v. Gibb, 21 Cal. 609; and in Mayor v. Dasher, 90 Ga. 197 (syllabus). 20 Cal. 69-72. BLUM v. PATE. Jury Trial.-Right to poll jury in civil actions does not exist after verdict recorded, p. 70. Cited in Hindrey v. Williams, 9 Colo. 377, on point that poll before recording verdict is discretionary; and in note to James v. State, 30 Am. Rep. 498, on general subject. Recording of Verdict terminates functions of jury, p. 71. Cited to same effect in People v. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 385, holding null an amended verdict fixing degree of crime, on recall of jury after discharge. 20 Cal. 72-75. CRANDALL v. AMADOR COUNTY. Agreed Statement of Facts.-Submission under restricts consideration of court to facts admitted, p. 14. Cited to same effect in Green v. Fresno County, 95 Cal. 334, as to rejection by supervisors of claims for fees. Mandamus will not lie without previous demand and refusal, p. 74. Cited to same effect in Oroville etc. Co. v. Plumas Co., 37 Cal. 363, as to enforcement of subscription by county; State v. Mayor, 22 Fla. 26, as to levy of taxes; Chumasero v. Potts, 2 Mont. 293, as to canvass of |