[Crim. No. 739. First Appellate District.-March 25, 1918.] Ex Parte JAMES CARRERA on Habeas Corpus. CRIMINAL LAW-INDETERMINATE SENTENCE-OFFENSE PRIOR TO ENACTMENT-PRONOUNCEMENT OF PROPER JUDGMENT.--Upon the authority of Ex parte Lee, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958], the petitioner herein remanded to custody of sheriff for judgment by the superior court upon his conviction. APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Ex parte Lee, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958]. Edwin V. McKenzie, and Hyman Levin, for Petitioner. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Frank L. Guerena, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. THE COURT.-Pursuant to the case of Ex parte Lee, 177 Cal. 690, [171 Pac. 958], it is ordered that the warden of the prison at San Quentin deliver the petitioner to the sheriff of Los Angeles County, to whose custody he is remanded; and that the superior court of that county take such steps as may be necessary to bring the petitioner, James Carrera, before it, and pronounce judgment upon his conviction heretofore han [Civ. No. 1800. Third Appellate District.-April 9, 1918.] GRAVELLY FORD CANAL COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. POPE & TALBOT LAND COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. PAROL LICENSE-CONSTRUCTION OF CANAL INJUNCTION.-Judgment reversed on the authority of Gravelly Ford Canal Co. v. Pope & Talbot Land Co., ante, p. 717. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Wm. M. Conley Judge. 36 Cal. App.-52 The facts are similar to those stated in Gravelly Ford Canal Co. v. Pope & Talbot Land Co., ante, p. 717. Edward F. Treadwell, for Appellant. J. W. Dorsey, and W. E. Cashman, for Respondent. CHIPMAN, P. J.-This is an action in which a temporary injunction was granted in the same case as No. 1801, in which latter a permanent injunction was granted. Apparently the matter was heard upon the same record in both cases, except certain maps are found in No. 1800 not attached to the record in No. 1801. We have considered the questions involved in dealing with the permanent injunction in No. 1801, which would seem to make it unnecessary to consider at any length the questions involved in No. 1800, for they are practically the same in both cases. On the authority of the case No. 1801, the judgment is reversed. Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court June 6, 1918. [Civ. No. 2154. First Appellate District.-April 13, 1918.] CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY, Appellant, ROSENBERG & SONS CO., Respondent. v. R. CORPORATION LAW-GUARANTY OF ACCOUNT OF CUSTOMER-AUTHORITY OF GENERAL MANAGER. Judgment reversed on the authority of Armour & Co. v. R. Rosenberg & Sons Co., ante, p. 773. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. James M. Seawell, Judge. The questions involved are similar to those presented in Armour & Co. v. R. Rosenberg & Sons Co., ante, p. 773. Ornbaun & Fraser, for Appellant. Louis H. Brownstone, for Respondent. KERRIGAN, J.-The questions involved in this appeal are in all respects similar to those presented in Armour & Co. v. R. Rosenberg & Sons Co. (No. 2104), ante, p. 773, [173 Pac. 404], and upon the authority of that case the judgment is reversed. Zook, J., pro tem., and Beasly, J., pro tem., concurred. A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on May 13, 1918, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on June 10, 1918. [Civ. No. 2361 First Appellate District.-April 16, 1918.] PATRICK J. WALSH, Respondent, v. M. FLATLAND, Appellant. NEGLIGENCE-AUTOMOBILE COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN-LIABILITY OF PARENT OF DRIVER.-Judgment affirmed on the authority of Crittenden v. Murphy, ante, p. 803. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Daniel C. Deasy, Judge. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion of the court in Crittenden v. Murphy, ante, p. 803. Pierce Coombes, for Appellant. W. F. Stafford, and W. M. Stafford, for Respondent. THE COURT.-This case presents the same question of law as was raised in Crittenden v. Murphy, ante, p. 803, [173 Pac. 595]. The lower court took the same view of the law as did this court in Crittenden v. Murphy, and found on ample evidence that at the time of the injury the son was driving defendant's automobile with his father's implied cou sent, and further found that the son did not have the license to operate an automobile required by the Motor Vehicle Act of 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 639), which act contained a provision identical with that quoted in Crittenden v. Murphy. Accordingly the court gave judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on June 14, 1918 |