Volume 122 — Washington Reports

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Lincoln county, Sessions, J., entered June 7, 1921, upon findings in favor of the defendant, dismissing an action for an injunction, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Executors and Administrators (165)&emdash;Compensation&emdash;Amount &emdash;Delay in Settlement of Estate&emdash;Evidence. An allowance of less than $1,500 a year to an executor for settling a large estate, requiring the land to he farmed and collections made, will not he held excessive, although there was some unnecessary delay through failure ■ to give notice to creditors.</p> <p>Same (45)&emdash;Management of Estate&emdash;Commingling Funds. While an executor should not commingle the trust funds with his own in one hank account, he is not guilty of misconduct in doing so if he ultimately accounts for all funds to those entitled thereto.</p>

, entered December 31, 1921, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sus- • tained in an automobile collision.

<p>Constitutional Law (48, 112)&emdash;Police Power&emdash;Licenses&emdash;Regulation of Business. Tbe business of pawnbroking involves suck a jeopardy of public safety as to warrant police regulation by a city, and no individual has an inherent right to engage in the same.</p> <p>Same (48, 112). The business of pawnbroking being a privilege and not a right, a city may provide that license therefor shall be granted to citizens of the United States and not to aliens.</p> <p>Treaties (2)&emdash;Construction&emdash;Right to “Carry on Trade”&emdash; Pawnbrokers&emdash;Rights of Aliens. The business of pawnbroking is not within the provisions of the treaty of April 5, 1911, between United States and Japan guaranteeing to the subjects of Japan residing in the United States the right to “carry on trade” upon the same terms as our own citizens.</p>

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Askren, J., entered November 15,1922, in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action to quiet title to an award for land appropriated for Federal purposes, and for damages, tried to the court.

<p>Damages (118)&emdash;Breach of Contract&emdash;Prospective Profits&emdash;Evidence. Prospective profits from a contract to log land for the owner, breached through the owner’s failure to furnish the logging company with logging equipment, are a matter of conjecture and speculation and not recoverable, where it rests upon the opinion of members of the logging company as to the profits that would have been made, without testimony as to the basis of their estimates.</p> <p>Damages (23)&emdash;Mitigation. In an action for loss of profits on a contract to log land for the owner, through the owner’s breach in failing to furnish logging equipment, it was the duty of the logging company to mitigate the damages by replacing defective equipment, if it could do so without undue expense.</p>

, entered February 28, 1922, in favor of the defendants, in an action to cancel water assessments, and for money paid, tried to the court.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Griffiths, J., entered December 17, 1921, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for conversion, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Physicians and Surgeons (12)&emdash;Malpractice&emdash;Negligence&emdash;Bur-den of Proof&emdash;Instructions. In an action for malpractice in reducing the fracture of an arm, and in the treatment, it is error to give an instruction placing the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that he was not guilty of negligence contributing to the injury sustained.</p> <p>Same (12). In such an action, it is error to instruct the jury that the only question for the jury is whether the defendants had properly reduced the fracture, where the principal issue in the case was their responsibility for failing to properly treat the fracture after its reduction.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Griffiths, J., entered January 26, 1922, in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to quiet title, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Infants (2)&emdash;Juvenile Delinquents&emdash;Order of Commitment&emdash; Right to Appeal&emdash;Bah, Pending Appeal&emdash;Statutes&emdash;Construction. A delinquent child committed to the reform school is not entitled to hail pending his appeal from the commitment; since under the juvenile act, Rem. Comp. Stat., §§ 1987-1 to 1987-18, there is no right of appeal provided for, and as the act provides that such a judgment shall in no case he deemed a conviction of crime, there is no appeal as from a criminal conviction.</p>