[L. A. No. 3071. In Bank.-February 13, 1914.] LYDIA A. THOMSON, Appellant, v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. NEGLIGENCE-COLLISION.-Judgment and order refusing a new trial reversed on the authority of Housel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co., ante, p. 245. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Walter Bordwell, Judge. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Housel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co., ante, p. 245. F. McD. Spencer, Foster C. Wright, and Hickcox & Crenshaw, for Appellant. J. W. McKinley, and R. C. Gortner, for Respondent. THE COURT.-The cause of action in this case was one to recover damages for personal injuries received in the same collision referred to in the case of Housel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. (L. A. No. 3070), ante, p. 245, [139 Pac. 73], this day decided. Judgment went for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals from such judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The questions presented are the same as those presented in Housel v. Pacific Electric Railway Co., ante, p. 245, [139 Pac. 73], and it was stipulated that the cause should be submitted upon the same record and briefs as those used in the Housel case and that whatever judgment was rendered in the latter case should also be determinative of the appeal herein. The judgment and order appealed from are reversed. [L. A. No. 3164. In Bank.-February 16, 1914.] W. A. POTTER, Respondent, v. M. E. POST, Appellant. W. E. M. COLE, Respondent, v. M. E. POST, Appellant. BROKERS-COMMISSION NOT EARNED.-Judgments and orders denying a new trial are reversed on the authority of Smith v. Post, ante, p. 69. APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from orders refusing a new trial. Gavin W. Craig, Judge. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Smith v. Post, ante, p. 69. Hunsaker & Britt, W. E. Mitchell, and Waterman & Green, for Appellant. John M. York, and Valentine & Newby, for Respondents. THE COURT.-Each of the above entitled actions is one brought to recover brokers' commissions on a sale of real estate. Judgment went in favor of the respective plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals from the judgments and from orders denying his motions for new trial. The cases were tried together, and the appeals are presented on a single transcript. The transactions giving rise to the litigation are fully set forth in our opinion in Smith v. Post, (L. A. No. 3080), ante, p. 69, [138 Pac. 705], decided January 15, 1914. The contract relied upon by the plaintiff in that case is the very paper upon which the plaintiff's here found their claims, and the evidence shown in this record with regard to the transactions had after the signing of that contract are substantially the same that were considered by the court in the Smith case. The opinion referred to holds that, under the facts shown, the plaintiff in the earlier case had established no right to the recovery of commissions. The reasoning is equally conclusive against the position of the respondents here. The judgments and orders appealed from are reversed. Beatty, C. J., does not participate in the foregoing. [Sac. No. 2130. Department Two.-March 24, 1914.] In the Matter of the Estate of ELLEN ROACH WHALEN, Deceased. ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS-PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP.— Order refusing an application for letters of administration affirmed, on the authority of Estate of Horman, ante, p. 473. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County denying a petition for letters of administration on the estate of a deceased person. Frank H. Smith, Judge. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in the case of Estate of Horman, ante, p. 473. C. W. Miller, for Appellant. W. R. Jacobs, and A. H. Carpenter, for Respondents. THE COURT.-This is an appeal by the public administrator of San Joaquin County from an order of the superior court of San Joaquin County denying his petition for letters of administration in the estate of Ellen Roach Whalen. It differs from the matter of Estate of Horman (Sac. No. 2131), ante, p. 473, [140 Pac. 11], this day decided, only in the fact that Mrs. Whalen was the sister of George Roach, deceased, while Mrs. Horman was his niece, and in the circumstance that Mrs. Whalen died before her heirs began the proceeding to establish their interest in their uncle's estate. There is no difference in principle between the two cases. Therefore upon the authority of Estate of Horman, we affirm the order from which the appeal was prosecuted. [8. F. No. 5942. In Bank.-May 27, 1914.] GEORGEANA B. BELDEN, Respondent, v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. LIFE INSURANCE POWER OF GENERAL AGENT-ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION. Judgment reversed upon the authority of Belden v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., ante, p. 741. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Belden v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., ante, p. 741. Pringle & Pringle, and W. S. Andrews, for Appellant. Frohman & Jacobs, Titus, Creed & Dall, A. H. Brandt, and A. M. Kidd, for Respondent. THE COURT.-The error discussed in the opinion in Belden v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (S. F. No. 5941), ante, p. 741, [141 Pac. 370], was repeated in the instruction given at the trial of this case, and upon the authority of that case the judgment is reversed. Rehearing denied. |