Wrongful Termination Cases

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Harry J. Wilters, Jr., J. Page 429

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order transferring action to the Municipal Court of San Francisco. Preston Devine, Judge. Affirmed. Action for damages for wrongful discharge of railroad employee, and for declaration of rights under a collective bargaining agreement. Judgment for defendants affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. A.K. Wylie, Judge. [fn*] Affirmed. Action for damages for wrongful termination of a contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed. [fn*] Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

<p>Action in the district court for St. Louis county by the father of plaintiff minor to recover $2,500 for personal injury. The ease was tried before Hughes, J., and a jury which returned a negative answer to the question whether the driver’s relation to the defendant was that of- an independent contractor, and an affirmative answer to the question whether at the time of the injury defendant had the right to, and did in fact, control the driver as to the time, place or manner of performing his work, and a general verdict in favor of plaintiff for $750. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, if plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $500, defendant appealed.</p>

<p>From Multnomah.: William N. G-atens, Judge.</p> <p>Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.</p> <p>This is an action brought by F. A. Cassity against Ben H. Wilson, Ada S. Wilson and F. B. Stratton, alleging that defendants entered into a conspiracy to mislead and defraud him concerning certain patents and patent rights controlled by them, which they represented had been transferred to the Twin Manufacturing Company, a corporation. The complaint asserts that defendants falsely represented that if the plaintiff would so invest large profits would be made; that, to induce him to take a commission contract, the services of one J. H. Jefferson were secured to act as a partner with plaintiff, the defendants falsely pretending that said Jefferson would put a like sum into the business; that plaintiff, relying upon the representations thus made, did advance $750 and gave his note for $500, and Jefferson, at the instance of defendants and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff, gave a check on the United States National Bank for $750 and his note for $500, which check was alleged to be worthless and known to be so by defendants at the time it was given. Plaintiff further avers that defendant Wilson, in pursuance of the conspiracy, agreed to go into partnership with him, and that he went north to Vancouver, B. C., and Seattle, at the behest of Wilson, to secure a location; that said Wilson did not carry out his agreement, and plaintiff was compelled to return to Portland with loss of much money and.time. To this defendants Ada S. Wilson and F. D. Stratton file a general denial; and defendant Ben H. Wilson, in a further and separate answer, alleges that the Twin Manufacturing Company is a corporation, that the contract was made with the corporation, that the money was paid to the corporation, and the officers of the corporation signed and put the seal of the corporation thereon. The case was triecl before the court without a jury, and, from findings and judgment in

<p>From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.</p> <p>Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.</p> <p>This is an action by D. R. B. Winniford and R. H. Mays, doing business under tbe firm name and style of Winniford & Mays, against A. L. MacLeod and tbe Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company, a corporation, and owner of what is known as Westover Terrace, in Portland, Oregon.</p> <p>Tbe complaint recites an ordinance of tbe City of Portland forbidding tbe explosion of gunpowder or other like material in tbe city limits without first having received a permit from tbe city engineer. It says also that prior to tbe explosion complained of MacLeod bad obtained from tbe proper officer a permit to use powder for blasting in an amount not to exceed five pounds upon tbe tract mentioned. At tbe time of tbe grievance complained of tbe plaintiffs were engaged in tbe erection of a dwelling-house for another near the scene of the blasting operations they describe, .but had not yet completed their contract. The complaint contains these allegations:</p> <p>303</p> <p>“That for more than a year prior to October 29, 1911, the defendant A. L. MacLeod had been carrying on blasting operations in a careless, negligent, malicious and wanton manner for the defendant Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company upon the land owned by the defendant company, and the defendant company well knew and appreciated that the defendant A. L. MacLeod was carrying on these blasting operations in a careless, negligent, malicious and wanton manner, and in such a manner as to endanger the property in the surrounding neighborhood; that on October 29, 1911, at about the hour of 3:30 P. M., the defendants, A. L. MacLeod and Lewis-Wiley Hydraulic Company, negligently, carelessly, maliciously and wantonly, through their servants, set off and exploded at one time 50 pounds of powder at a point about 150 feet west of the said house hereinabove described; that the said explosion threw a great number of rocks at terrific speed against and into the s

<p>From Josephine: Frank M. Calkins, Judge.</p> <p>Department 1. Statement hy Mr. Chief Justice McBride.</p> <p>This is an action in ejectment by Ada Erb Bunch against George B. Thomblison, Artie Thomblison and Mary Ellen Leonard, to recover possession of a certain 40-acre tract of land, situated in Josephine County. The plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment, and defendants appeal.</p> <p>The facts appearing on the record are as follows: On April 2, 1892, J. D. Glidden and Ellenor, his wife, being the owners of the west half of the southeast quarter and the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 28, township 39 south, range 7 west, Willamette meridian, mortgaged the same to William Dailey to secure the payment of the sum of $383.85, with interest at 10 per cent, per annum. On September 4, 1895, Dailey brought suit to foreclose the mortgage. The complaint correctly described the land mortgaged, but in the decree which was subsequently rendered the land was erroneously described as the west half of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said section 28, including 40 acres not owned by the mortgagors and omitting the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter which was described in the mortgage; the error being probably caused by the clerk writing the word “southeast” instead of the word “southwest.” Execution and order of sale was issued containing the same erroneous description, and the land was sold and bid in by Dailey for the full amount of his decree and costs. The sheriff issued a deed to Dailey containing the said erroneous description and reciting a confirmation of the sale, but no order of confirmation appears on the record. Dailey died, and the property passed by inheritance to his son Edward Dailey, and subsequently passed by a series of ■ conveyances to plaintiff, all of which contained the same erroneous description found in the original decree: On September 28, 1896, the Grliddens conveyed the south

<p>Appeal, No. 187, Oct. T., 1912, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 116, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Henry B. McCormick and Vance C. McCormick, Trustees of tbe Estate of Henry McCormick, Deceased, v. John A. Berkey and John R. Boose.</p> <p>Issue framed under tbe Act of June 10, 1893, P. L. 415, to determine title to minerals underlying tract of land in Quemakoning Township. Before Holt, P. J., specially presiding.</p> <p>The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the real estate in dispute, upon which judgment was entered.</p> <p>On a rule for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v., Holt, P. J., filed the following opinion:</p> <p>In this case an issue was framed between the plaintiffs and the defendants, to determine the right and title of the respective parties in and to a tract of mineral land in the Township of Quemahoning, in said county, bounded by lands of Jacob Lohr, and others, containing 192 acres and 118 perches strict measure.</p> <p>On the 14th day of May, 1887, the Johnstown Lumber Company became the owners in fee simple of a certain tract or piece of land in said township, containing 245 acres and 134 perches; and the Johnstown Lumber Company, on the 25th day of April, 1889, being so seized of said tract of land, executed and delivered unto one John Holsopple a deed for 192 acres and 134 perches of the said tract of land, reserving the right of the grantors to all the minerals underlying the same, with the usual mining privileges. The Johnstown Lumber Company, by another deed, dated October 28, 1891, conveyed unto the Cambria Land Company, by metes and bounds, the whole of the said tract of land containing 245 acres and 134 perches, excepting and reserving,, however, out of the operation of the grant, the 192 acres and 134 perches of the surface of said tract heretofore conveyed by the Johnstown Lumber Company to John Holsopple.</p> <p