ASSIGNMENTS (Continued).

the rent due from the defendant. (Duncan v. Tom Poste, Inc., 370.)

2. ASSIGNMENT FOR COLLECTION-RIGHT TO SUE.-A mere assignment for collection, when sufficient in form to vest the legal title in the assignee, authorizes him to prosecute the action. (Ingle Mfg. Co. v. Scales, 410.)

3. INCLUDING OF ASSIGNED CLAIM WITH OTHER DEMANDS-RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE. Where a claim has been assigned for the purpose of having it included in a suit to be brought by the assignee upon other demands and so avoid the trouble and expense of a separate action, the title passes to the transferee and he may maintain the action. (Id.)

4. RIGHT TO RECEIVE ASSIGNMENT PLEA OF ULTRA VIRES.-In an action on an assigned claim, the plea of ultra vires as to the right of the corporation assignee to receive an assignment of the assignor's interest in the contract sued upon is not available to the defendant who owes the debt. (Id.)

See Guaranty, 1; Leases, 3.

ATTACHMENT. See Conversion, 1.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY-NOTICE TO APPOINT ANOTHER-WHEN UNNECESSARY. Under section 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that when an attorney dies, or is removed or suspended, or ceases to act as such, a party to an action, for whom such attorney was acting, must, before any further proceedings are had against him, be required by the adverse party, by written notice, to appoint another attorney, or to appear in person, the only object of the notice is to require of a party whose attorney had ceased to act that he appoint a new attorney or appear in the action in person, and where a party serves and files a notice that his attorney has withdrawn from the case, and that he appears in person and without attorney, no notice by the adverse party as provided by the section is essential. (Unwin v. Barstow-San Antonio Oil Co., 508.).

ATTORNEY AT LAW.

1. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS-Judgment SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE UNNECESSARY-FINDINGS.-In a proceeding for the disbarment of an attorney, it is not necessary that the judgment of suspension should specify the particular charge or accusation upon which the disbarment is made, where the findings state specifically the particular charges upon which the judgment is predicated. (In re Biaggi, 650.)

ATTORNEY AT LAW (Continued).

2. APPEAL REVIEW OF FINDINGS.-While findings are not required in a proceeding for the disbarment of an attorney, they are not prohibited, and when present are properly a part of the record which the appellate court may review. (Id.)

3. JUDGMENT-PERMANENT CONTINGENT DISBARMENT-VOID PROVISION. A condition in an order suspending an attorney from practice for the period of five years, with the privilege of applying for reinstatement at the end of two years, that if at the end of the two year period it shall appear to the court that he had directly violated the order or had been guilty of any additional conduct involving moral turpitude he should be permanently disbarred, is void, as an attempt to prejudge and predetermine matters not before the court at the time of the making of the order. (Id.)

4. ADVERTISING TO PROCURE DIVORCE.—An attorney at law who causes to be published in certain newspapers of general circulation an advertisement stating that divorce is one of his specialties is guilty of conduct contrary to and in violation of the provisions of section 159a of the Penal Code. (Id.)

5. REVOCATION OF ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE-FRAUD UPON COURT. An order revoking an order of the district court of appeal admitting an attorney to practice law is justified where such attorney upon his application for admission failed to apprise the court that he had previously applied on two different occasions to another court of co-ordinate general jurisdiction, and had withdrawn his applications when confronted with objections by the Bar Association of the county of his residence founded upon charges impeaching his personal character for those traits which are justly esteemed as among the first essentials of a practicing lawyer. (In re Wells, 785.)

ATTORNEY'S FEES.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-CONTRACT FOR SERVICES IN DEFENDING ACTION -TIME FOR BRINGING SUIT.-Under a contract between an attorney and client providing that if the former defeated a pending action against the latter or prevented recovery, the latter would pay the former for his services the entire amount prayed for in such action, or if a lesser amount should be recovered the difference should be paid, the action is not defeated until the judgment has become final, and an action brought for such services pending an appeal taken in the former action by the defendant is prematurely brought. (Cuneo v. Davis, 351.)

See Account Stated, 2; Damages, 1; Promissory Notes, 11.

BANKS. See Trusts, 4.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. See Appeal, 8.

BONDS. See Charters, 6; Criminal Law, 11; Damages, 1; Municipal Corporations, 1; Pleading, 7.

BRIDGES. See Counties, 1.

BRIEFS. See Appeal, 22, 24.

BROKERS.

1. BROKER'S COMMISSIONS-INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-PROPER NONSUIT. In this action to recover a sum of money alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff in negotiating a sale of certain real property owned by the defendants, it is held that judgment of nonsuit was properly ordered. (Stephens v. Anderson, 199.)

2. COMMISSIONS, WHEN EARNED.-Before a real estate agent may be said to have earned a commission he is required to show that he produced to the vendor a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy for the price and upon the terms proposed by the vendor in the agency contract. (Id.)

3. BROKER'S COMMISSION-WHEN EARNED.-Generally speaking, a broker authorized to sell real property has earned his commission when he has brought an acceptable purchaser to the vendor-one who is ready, able, and willing to buy the property upon the terms on which the agent is authorized to sell; or when a written contract acceptable to the seller has been entered into with a purchaser brought to the vendor by the agent. (Alison v. Chapman, 759.) 4. COMMISSION PAYABLE UPON CONSUMMATION OF SALE-CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.-Where a broker authorized to sell real property for a fixed price found a purchaser for a less price, and an agreement was entered into between them for the sale of the property at that price, which agreement was approved by the owner, but with the proviso that the broker's commission should be a flat one thousand dollars, payable "when the sale is consummated," the quoted words had reference to some future event, and not to the time of the signing of the contract, and where the deed never passed, the broker could not recover the commission. (Id.)

5. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT BY OWNER-RETENTION OF CONTROL BY BROKER-EFFECT OF.-Under a contract of sale providing that the broker should have the right to demand the delivery of a deed from the seller, thus retaining in his own control the power to secure the deed and demand performance of the purchaser, the broker cannot argue that it was the duty of the owner to enforce specific performance of the contract, and having failed to do so, is liable for the commission. (Id.)

6. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF PURCHASER-BURDEN OF PROOF.-In an action by a broker to recover a commission under a contract providing for payment on consummation of sale, the burden of proving the

BROKERS (Continued).

financial ability of the proposed purchaser is upon the plaintiff. (Id.)

See Contracts, 16; Corporations, 4; Pleading, 6.

BUILDING CONTRACTS.

1. ACTION FOR DAMAGES

SETTLING OF BUILDING ·EVIDENCE-PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.-In an action for damages for the settling of a building constructed by defendant for plaintiff due to an alleged defective drain, where defendant by his answer admitted that by the terms of his contract and according to the plans and specifications he was required to place a galvanized iron drain from the lightwell of the building, and the only difference between such admission and the allegation of the complaint was that the complaint stated that according to the plans and specifications the drain should have been of vitrified iron, it was not necessary for plaintiff to introduce in evidence the specifications as a foundation for proof that the work did not conform thereto. (Prophet v. Katzenberger, 543.)

2. DEFECTIVE DRAIN FAULTY FOUNDATION - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. In this action for damages to a building due to the settling thereof by reason of the defective character of drain-pipe and foundation, it is held the evidence is sufficient to support the findings in favor of plaintiff. (Id.)

3. ABANDONMENT BY SUBCONTRACTOR-GIVING OF THREE DAYS' NOTICE -WHEN UNNECESSARY.-Under a provision in a contract between an original contractor and a subcontractor providing that in the event that the latter should delay the work, the former might prosecute it if the work was not done by the latter after three days' notice, no notice is required to authorize the contractor to proceed, where the subcontractor entirely abandons the contract, and the surety on the subcontractor's bond is not released from liability for damages from such nonperformance of the contract. (New England etc. Co. v. Chicago etc. Co., 584.)

4. COMPLETION OF WORK BY OWNER-DAMAGE OF CONTRACTOR.-Where upon abandonment of work by a subcontractor the owner completes the same, and deducts the amount thereof from the amount payable to the contractor, the latter is damaged in such amount, notwithstanding the contractor does not complete the work. (Id.)

5. ACTION FOR BREACH-EVIDENCE-ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF SPECIFICATIONS-CURE BY SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY.-In an action for failure to erect a building according to contract, any error in admitting in evidence certain specifications which were not signed by the parties was cured by defendant's testimony that the work was done in accordance with the specifications, and that they were followed as closely as he could do so. (Watson v. Anderson, 778.):

6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAULTY CONSTRUCTION-WANT OF EVIDENCENONSUIT PROPERLY DENIED.-In an action for failure to erect a

BUILDING CONTRACTS (Continued).

building according to contract, a motion for nonsuit was properly denied where there was no evidence offered to show that plaintiffs were in any way responsible for the faulty construction of the building. (Id.)

CERTIORARI. See Election Law, 2; Workmen's Compensation Act, 6; Writ of Review.

CHARTERS.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CITY OF NAPA NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS GENERAL LAW NOT SUPERSEDED BY CHARTER.—The provision of section 68 of the charter of the city of Napa providing that the duties of commissioners under the general law in the matter of opening, widening, straightening, or closing streets shall be performed under the direction of the councilman in charge of the department of streets and public improvement and the city attorney, was not intended to supersede or take the place of section 6 of the Street Opening and Widening Act of 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 71), which provides for the appointment of three commissioners to assess benefits and damages. (City of Napa v. Maxwell, 103.)

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-POWER OF LEGISLATURE.-Under the constitution, the legislature has no authority to make any alteration or amendment to a city charter, but its sole power is to ratify or reject it. (Williams v. City of Vallejo, 133.)

3. DATE OF TAKING EFFECT OF CHARTER-RIGHT TO PROVIDE IN CHARTER. A city charter may provide that some of its provisions shall take effect on a date other than the date of its approval by the legislature. (Id.)

4. CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVOIR-PART OF WATER SYSTEM-MUNICIPAL AFFAIR. The construction of a reservoir. by a city upon its own land and to be used for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof as a part of its water system is a municipal affair, within the provision of section 8 of article XI of the constitution. (Id.)

5. CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVOIR IN CITY OF VALLEJO CHARTER GOVERNING WORK.-A contract for the construction of a reservoir in the city of Vallejo upon its own land for the benefit of the city as a part of its water system, which was entered into on the nineteenth day of June, 1911, is governed by the charter of 1899 (Stats. 1899, p. 370), and not by the charter of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 1422), since by the express provision of section 128 of the latter instrument, it did not become effective for purposes other than the election of officers until July 1, 1911, notwithstanding it was approved by the legislature on March 11, 1911. (Id.)

6. CITY CONTRACTS UNDER VALLEJO CHARTER OF 1899-PUBLIC WORK ACT OF 1897 INAPPLICABLE.-In view of the fact that the charter