INDEX. ALCALDES. See GUARDIAN, 1, 2; JUDGMENTS, 6, 7, & ALIENS. See CRIMINAL LAW, 21. APPEAL. APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT.- An appeal does not lie from an order of the Probate Court refusing to set aside an order for the sale of the property of an estate, previously made. Estate of Smith, 564. See PRACTICE ACT, 8. APPURTENANCES. See REALTY, 1, 2, 8. ARGUMENT OF CASE. ARGUMENT OF CASE.- If the appellant claims that there is no evidence to sustain a finding, and moves for a new trial on this ground, the respondent must point out such evidence in the transcript, if it exists. Williston v. Perkins, 554. ASSESSMENTS. 1. CONTRACT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO.-If, in a proceeding to improve a street in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors do not make an order for the publication of the notice of the award of the contract, all the proceedings subsequent to the award, including the assessment, are void. Reis v. Graff, 86. 2. ACT VALIDATING VOID ASSESSMENT.- An act attempting to validate a vold assessment on a lot in a city for a street improvement, if it has that effect, does not, by relation, make the assessment valid as of the date when it was levied, but only validates it at the date of the passage of the act. Id. 3. ACTION TO ENFORCE LIEN.- An action cannot be maintained to enforce a lien for a street improvement, which lien did not exist at the time the action was commenced. Id. 4. APPEAL TO Board of SUPERVISORS IN SAN FRANCISCO.- When an appeal from an assessment on a lot for improving a street in San Francisco is taken regularly and in proper time, the Board has no power to dismiss it; and even if an order is made dismissing it the assessment does not become a finality, and an action cannot be maintained on it. People v. O'Neil, 91. [647] 5. ACT VALIDATING AN ASSESSMENT.- An act validating a void assessment fo. the improvement of a street, if constitutional, makes the assessmen valid only from the date of its passage, so that pending suits brought t enforce the tax are not affected by the act. ld. 6. VALIDATING STREET ASSESSMENT.- An act validating an assessment for im proving a street, if of any effect, makes the assessment valid only fron the time of its passage. People v. Kinsman, 92. See STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 5; STREETS; Swamp Lands, 1. ATTACHMENTS. 1. WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.-The official bond of a county treasurer is an obligation for the direct payment of money in an action upon which an attachment may be issued. Monterey Co. v. McKee, 255. 2. ATTACHMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.—If a sheriff attaches personal property, consisting of a portable steam threshing engine and accompanying articles used for threshing, by making a memorandum of the property and delivering a copy of the attachment, summons, and complaint, to the defendant, and then directing verbally a person who is at work one hundred yards from the place where the property lies to look after it, and if any one meddles with it to tell them it is attached, he has sufficient custody of the property as against persons purchasing it from the defendant with knowledge of the attachment. Rogers v. Gilmore, 309. 3. DEFENDANT IN AN ATTACHMENT SUIT.- A defendant in an action, against whom a writ of attachment has been issued, cannot be compelled to attend before the judge or a referee, and submit to an examination as to the condition and situation of his property, nor can he be compelled to deliver up his property. Ex parte Rickleton, 316. 4. IDEM. Section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure refers to persons owing debts to, or having possession of, personal property belonging to the defendant in an attachment sult. Id. 5. SHERIFF'S JUSTIFICATION UNDER ATTACHMENT.- A sheriff, who, by virtue to an attachment, seizes property in the possession of the judgment debtor, may justify by producing the writ; but if he seizes property in the possession of a third person, as the judgment debtor's, he must prove, when sued for damages, not only the attachment, but the proceedings on which It was based. Horn v. Corvarubias, 524. See TENANTS IN COMMON, 2, 8. ATTORNEY IN FACT. See POWER OF ATTORNEY, 1. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. See CHECKS, 1. BOUNDARY LINES. 1. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE MAP AND SURVEY OF A TOWN.-An official map of a town plat which, by reference to monuments established, or by some other mode, refers to a survey, is presumed to correctly represent the survey as actually made; but if there is a discrepancy between the map and the survey in the field, the survey must prevail, if the position of the points and lines established by the survey can be proved. O'Farrell v. Harney, 125. 2. BOUNDARY LINES.- If two persons own adjoining tracts of land, and one of them erects a fence upon what he believes to be the boundary line between the tracts, and the fence is not on the true line, but is several inches on the adjoining tract, and the one building the fence holds adverse possession of the land of the other thus inclosed for several years, under the belief that the fence is on the true line, these facts do not make the line on which the fence is built the dividing line, nor make it the true line, and the one whose land is taken can recover it in ejectment. Allen v. Reed, 362. See EVIDENCE, 4. CASES CITED AS AUTHORITY. Eckart v. Campbell, 39 Cal. 258, and Carpenter v. Sargent, 41 Cal. 559, in Keenea v. Doherty, 6. Anderson v. Rider, 46 Cal. 137, in Maine v. Elliott, 10. Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 241, Crosby v. Lyon, 37 Cal. 243, People v. Me- Donner v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 500, and Chipley v. Farris, 45 Cal. 539, in Miller v. Ellis, 74. Watson v. S. F. & H. B. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 524, in Chamberlin v. Vance, 85. Donnelly v. Tillman, 47 Cal. 40, In Reis v. Graff, 90. Bay v. Pope, 18 Cal. 694, in Haggin v. Clark, 115. Crowley v. Davis, 37 Cal. 269, in Flaherty v. Kelly, 147. Meek v. Kirby, 47 Cal. 168, in McCrea v. Haraszthy, 151. Gardiner v. Miller, 47 Cal. 579, and Reed v. Ybarra, 50 Cal. 465, in De MIranda v. Toomey, 165. Stearns v. Agulerre, 7 Cal. 449, in Curry v. Roundtree, 185. Hopkins v. W. P. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 190, in Severy v. C. P. R. R. Co., 197. Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154, in Ponce v. McElvy, 222. Keyes v. Fenstermaker, 24 Cal. 333, in Curtis v. Sprague, 241. San Francisco v. Brader, 50 Cal. 506, and Hathaway v. Davis, 83 Cal. 161, in County of Monterey v. McKee, 255. Collier v. Steinhart, ante, 116, in McLean v. Blue Point Gravel M. Co., 257. San Mateo Water Co. v. Sharpstein, 50 Cal. 284, in Sanborn v. Belden, 269. S. & V. R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147, in Con. Channel Co. v. C. P. R. R. Co., 273. Placer Co. v. Astin, 8 Cal. 303, in McKee v. Monterey Co., 277. Breeze v. Doyle, 19 Cal. 101, and Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 375, in Ladd v. Tully, 278. Ex parte Marks, 49 Cal. 680, in People v. Booker, 318. Terry v. Hammond, 47 Cal. 32, in Brenham v. Davidson, 356. San Francisco v. McCain, 50 Cal. 210, and Reis v. Graff, ante, 86, in People v. McCain, 361. People v. Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, ante, 243, in Bank of Mendocino v. Chalfant, 370. People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221, and People v. Hamilton, 46 Cal. 540, in People v. Ardaga, 372. People v. Brannan, 47 Cal. 96, in People v. Ah Sing, 373. |