,acquire; .titletotbe draft,or dts" proceeds. Rq,ilJohn$iQn, ;Rep. 390. indorsement 'upon i tBedraft, was notice to that, thl'l; ;Jridelity Bank was merely :al}.JI,gentfor the to collect the proceeds, consequently ,the defen,d,ant Aid not better titleto the; draft, or its proceeds, than the Fidelity Bank bad. Judgment is ordered for the plaintiffs.
MosmR et w.t.v.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. V. Oa7l/J'ornw. August 8, 1890.)
INJURIES BY ANIlIU.LS-PLEADING-SCIENTEB.
In an action, for personal injury, by defendant'l! cow, it is not necessary to allege scienter where it is alleged that the injury was committed while the cow was negligently permitted, by defendant, to trespass on plaintiff's premises.
HUSBAND A.ND WIFE-AcTIONS-PLEADINGS-MIsJOINDEB.'
In an actiOn by' husband and wife; ,a compl,"nt stating '8lI the cause of action a personal injury done to the Wife, Qn,d averrmg that by reason of such injury both plaintUfs'h,ave been damaged, is demurrable for misjoinder of causes of action, sirice the hUsband, though a proper party plaintiff, cannot recover for such injUl7.
J.' W. Ahern and Del Valle
La",,';'" 0n demurrer to complaint.
Stephen M. White, for defendant.
« Munday, for plaintiffs.
, Ross, J.;Two objectioDsare urged by the demurrer to the amended complaint in this case. One is that there is no allegation to the effect that the defendant had any knowledge of the dangerous character of the cow which, iUs alleged, inflicted, the injuries complained of. But the complaintaJleges ,that the defendant negligently permitted the cow to tr6$paas anel, ,mla.wfully to be upon the premises of the plaintiffs, and that while so trespassing the injuties were inflicted. Under such circumstances it is not necessary to allege that the owner had knowledge of the vicio\ls, propensity ,of theanirrial.. Van Leuven v. liyke, 1 N. Y. 515; Decker v.'Gatrrrr1-cJ'll, 44 Me. 322, ,and authorities cited in note to that case in 69 Amer. Dec. 103. The plaintiffs are alleged to be husband and wife. and the injuries to have been inflicted on the wife, and by rE'ason of such injuries that "the plaintiff NellieL. Mosier, and both plaintiffs herein, have been injured in the SU111 of fifty thousand dollars." Wherefore theyprayjudgrpent for that S\lm, with costs. . The ground .of the action beingtbe wife's persopal injuries, the cause C)faction is, The husband was properly joined as a plaintiff, be<lause thecommQn-law rule, requiring that he do so, is yet in force in sta,te. husbapd,cannot himself recover for the.personal inwife. Matt1wuJ". Railroad Go., 63 Cal. 451, and .(',:ited. Upon the ground that there is a misjoinder of 9Rusea of 3Gti9n in; the amended COll1plllint, the demurrer is sustained, with leave 1,9 'plaintiffs to further amend. within 10. days.
15 RB LEE SiNG.
In re In re
Too QUAN et ale
(Cf.rcuf.t Court, N. D. CaUjornfa. August 25, 1800.)
MUNICIPAL CoRPOBATlONS-ORDlNANOEs-CONSTITUTlOIUL LAW.
The ordinance enacted by the city of San Francisco, known 8S the "Bingham Ordinance, "which requires all Chinese inhabitants to remove from the portion of the city theretofore occupied by them, outside the city and county of San Francisco, 01' to another part of the city and county is void as being in direct conflict witb the constitution, treaties, and statutes of the United States, particularly iu, the sense that it is discriminating and unequal. in its operation, and an arbitrary con:lillcation of property without due procell8 of law. . . .
At Law. The ordinance under which the arrest was made is as follows: I' Order No. 2190 designating the location and the district in which Chinese sball reside and carryon business ill this city and county. "The pe9ple of the city and county of San Francisco do hereby as follows: . "Section 1. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any Chinese to locate, reside, or carryon business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, except in that district of said city and county ,hereinafter' prescribed for their location. "Sec. 2. The following portions of the city and county of San Francisco are hereby set apart for the location of all Chinese who may desire to reside;: locate, or carryon business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco, to-wit: Within that tract of limd described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of Kentucky street with' the south-westerly line of First avenue; thenM south-easterly along the southwesterly line of First avenue to the north-westerly line of I streetjtbellC8 south-westerly along the north-westerly line of I street to the south-westerly' line of Seventh avenue; thence north-westerly along the south-westerly line, of Seventh avenue to the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue; thence north-easterly along the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue to Kentucky street; thence northerly along the easterly liDe of Kentucky street to. the south-westerly line of First avenue and place of commencement. "Sec.8. Within sixty days after the passage of this ordinance all Chinese' now located; residing in or carrying on business Within the limits of said city and county of San ]j'rancisco IIhall either remove withontthe limits of said city and county of San Francisco or remove and locate within the district of said city and county of San Francisco herein provided for their location. "Sec. 4. Any Chinese residing, locating, or carrying on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco contrary to the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shllll be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a terin not exceeding six 'months. "Sec. 5. It is hereby made the duty of the chief of police and of every member of the police department of said city and county of San Francisco to strictly enforce the provisions of this order. , "And the clerk is hereby directed to advertise this order as required by law. ' ' "In board of supervisors, San Francisco, February 17, 1890. "Passed' for printing by the following vote: Ayes-Supervisors Bingham,