Mena v. Le Roy
Before: Bennett
Synopsis
Appeal from the court of First Instance for the district of San Francisco. The only question of importance presented by the case was as to the jurisdiction and powers of Alcaldes. The cause was twice argued. On the first argument the papers returned to this court were of the most loose and unsatisfactory character, and on this account principally, the cause was remanded for a new trial. A motion was thereupon made for a re-hearing ; the court being furnished with another return from the clerk of the court below, containing many papers not included in the first return. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the two opinions of the court. The cause was argued by
Opinion — Bennett
By the Court,
Bennett, J. It appears from the papers in this case that some kind of a proceeding, either by way of oon-ciliacion or in the nature of a formal suit, was instituted by the plaintiff Mena against the “ master and owners of the ship “ Rolland,” on the 20th day of June, 1849, before the Alcalde of San Francisco. Three persons were appointed as a jury or as arbitrators to try the cause, who rendered their verdict or award in favor of the plaintiff for $1000, against the “ ship “ Rolland and owners,” upon which judgment -was rendered by the Alcalde on the 22d day of June. For what the action was brought nowhere appears, nor does it appear that there were any pleadings in the cause on either side. On the 22d day of June, a citation was issued directed to Victor Le Boy, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay “ out of “ the freight of the ship Rolland a certain debt of $1000 of “ sentence of court.” Le Boy appeared in pursuance of this citation, and on the same day “ was discharged from liability,” and the plaintiff required to pay the costs. It does not appear in whose favor or upon what ground this proceeding was commenced against Le Boy, or for what reason he was “discharged “ from liability.”
On the 30th day of June, another citation was issued, directed to Victor Le Boy, Henry Raymond and Alfred Price or Peril, commanding them to show cause on the 2d day of July why they should not pay the above-mentioned judgment against the master and owners of the ship Rolland, and of the proceeds of the. freight of that ship. This process was served, as appears from the return of the sheriff, “ by delivering to the said Viator “ Le Roy a true and attested copy of the same.”
It appears that there was some kind of a trial before the Alcalde on the 2d day of July, upon the conclusion of which he rendered a judgment in the following words : “It appearing “that defendant had received $3400 freight of ship Rolland, “ and had paid the captain or master $2040, part of it since “the date of the receipts, but the lien of the shippers attaching [218]“ upon delivery on board and receipt for cargo ; it is ordered “ that consignees in default of ship, and under the circumstances “ of the case, pay the judgment of $1000 and costs.”
The receipts referred to in the above judgment are two receipts, the one, dated June 16, 1849, for 1440piasters ; and the other, dated May 30, 1849, for 1600 piasters, signed by the master and acknowledging the receipt from Le Roy of the respective sums therein mentioned.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)