PARENT AND CHILD (Continued). of section 215 of the Civil Code that a child born out of wedlock becomes legitimate by the subsequent marriage of its parents is not confined to minors, but is applicable to those who have attained majority. (Id.) NONRESIDENCE 4. CHILD LEGITIMATED UNDER LAWS OF CALIFORNIA OF FATHER IMMATERIAL.-The status of children legitimated under the laws of this state is not affected by the fact that their father was an alien and domiciled outside of the state. (Id.) 5. STATUS OF CLAIMANT ΤΟ SUCCESSION - DISREGARD OF EXTRATERRITORIAL LAWS.-While it is generally true that the laws of one state or country have no extraterritorial effect, on the other hand, when the status of a person is under consideration before the courts of this state in questions of succession, they will apply our own statutes in determining the status of the claimant to the succession; and if the claimant shows that by applying our law he is entitled to take as a legitimate child, it is sufficient, and the fact that by the law of his own country he is not legitimate is immaterial. (Id.) 6. LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN - - EFFECT OF STATUTES.-The right of inheritance of legitimate and illegitimate children alike is a creature of law, and can be changed by the legislature at any time and to any extent. When the law provides means for making legitimate a child born out of wedlock, it changes the status of that child, and, in the absence of special provision to the contrary, he thenceforth comes within the provisions of the laws relating to legitimate children. Thereafter a child so legitimated is included in the designation "child" or "children" when those words refer to a child or children legitimately born; and he is no longer included in the designation "illegitimate child" when that term is used in a statute, unless it is obvious that such words are intended by the legislature to include one who, though now legitimate, was formerly illegitimate. (Id.) See Contempt, 2, 3. PARTIES. See Husband and Wife, 1, 2; Mortgage, 2; Quieting Title, 1. PARTITION. See Mortgage, 3, 4. PARTNERSHIP. 1. ACTION FOR GOODS SOLD-PENDENCY OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PARTNERSHIP DEFENDANT JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT. In an action brought against certain individuals and a copartnership consisting of such individuals for the recovery of the value of merchandise sold by the plaintiff to the copartnership, and also for the recovery of various amounts due other creditors and PARTNERSHIP (Continued). which had been assigned to the plaintiff, the superior court is not deprived of jurisdiction by the pendency at the time of the filing of the complaint of bankruptcy proceedings against the partnership and two of the three named individual defendants. (Brazil v. Azevedo, 364.) 2. BANKRUPTCY ACT STAY OF PENDING ACTION IN STATE COURT.— Under section 11a of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, while a suit which is founded upon a claim from which a discharge would be a release, is stayed until the adjudication or dismissal of the petition, and may be further stayed by the United States district court as therein provided, a state court in which suit is pending is not deprived of jurisdiction. (Id.) 3. LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS PLEADING LACK OF UNCERTAINTY.The complaint in such an action is not rendered either ambiguous or uncertain by the allegation that each of the defendants became indebted to the plaintiff for the goods furnished, and that they were so furnished at the special instance and request of each of the defendants. (Id.) 4. LOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP PLACE OF SALE OF GOODS ·IMMATERIAL AVERMENTS.-Where such an action is brought in a court of general jurisdiction and personal service of summons made, the complaint is not rendered ambiguous for failure to allege the place where the partnership business was conducted and the goods sold. (Id.) 5. INTEREST CLAIMS BASED UPON CONTRACTS.-Interest is properly allowed in such an action on the various amounts found to be due to the plaintiff, in view of the fact that the liability of the defendant was in each instance based upon contract for goods sold at certain prices or at current market value, or was for an agreed rental, or for money loaned with interest fixed by agreement. (Id.) 6. ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS-CONFORMANCE TO RULE OF BANKRUPTCY COURT NOT REQUIRED.-In such an action it is not necessary that the assignment should comply with the form required by a rule of the United States district court. (Id.) 7. LIABILITY OF PARTNER FOR DEBTS.-A copartner, while his obligation is joint, is still liable to a creditor for the entire amount of the partnership debt. (Id.) 8. LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE-REFUSAL TO PERMIT FILING OF AMENDED ANSWER-DISCRETION NOT ABUSED.-The refusal to allow the defendants to file an amended answer, wherein they allege for the first time a lack of legal capacity in the plaintiffs to sue arising out of their alleged failure to comply with the provisions of sections 2466 and 2467 of the Civil Code, relating to the filing of certificates of partnerships, under fictitious names, is not an abuse of discretion, where such application was made upon the trial of PARTNERSHIP (Continued). the action, more than three years after the filing of the original answer. (Paff v. Ottinger, 439.) 9. ACTION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED AND MONEY EXPENDED-EXPLORATION OF PROSPECTIVE OIL TERRITORY-PARTNERSHIP RELATION OF DEFENDANTS-SUPPORT OF FINDING.-In an action against several individual defendants for services performed and money expended in exploring prospective oil territory, a finding that the relation of general partners existed between the defendants is sufficiently established by letters which passed between them indicating that each was to furnish an equal amount of capital. (Callahan v. Danziger, 405.) See Association. PAYMENT. See Building Contract; Reclamation District. PERJURY. See Criminal Law, 50, 51. PLACE OF TRIAL. See Nuisance, 1. PLEADING. 1. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT WITHDRAWAL AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT-DISCRETION NOT ABUSED.— In an action to recover judgment upon a promissory note, where after answer filed, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the defendant consented and requested that the court grant judgment upon the pleadings in accordance with the prayer of defendant's answer, to wit, that plaintiff take nothing, etc., and the court after argument and submission of the motion announced from the bench that he would have to give judgment for the defendant on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it is within the jurisdiction of the court, in the exercise of its discretion, to thereafter permit the withdrawal of the motion of plaintiff and the filing of an amended complaint. (Gunter v. Sackett, 21.) 2. RECOVERY OF MONEYS EXPENDED -SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT.— A complaint drawn in conformity with the common count for moneys expended for the use and benefit of another is not subject to special demurrer for failure to allege the expenditures in detail, as the same are obtainable through a demand for a bill of particulars. (Levi v. Sockolov, 298.) 3. LATE FILING OF ANSWER -ORDER STRIKING FROM FILES ABUSE OF DISCRETION.-An order striking an answer from the files for failure to file the same within the time allowed by the court upon the overruling of the demurrer to the complaint is an abuse of discretion, where the pleading was filed but one day late, and set PLEADING (Continued). forth a meritorious defense, and the plaintiff made no move to strike it from the files until one month after it was filed. (Bank of Haywards v. Kenyon, 635.) 4. ANSWER FILED AFTER TIME-STRIKING FROM FILES-DISCRETION.An answer filed late is an irregularity and not an absolute nullity, which the plaintiff, as a matter of strict legal right, is entitled to have stricken from the files, but such a case is one for the exercise of judicial discretion in view of all the facts and in the promotion of justice. (Id.) 5. EXTENSION OF TIME BY CONDUCT.-When a party, after the time expressly granted for filing a pleading against him has expired, suffers further time to elapse without taking any action thereon, and in the meantime the pleading is served and filed, he, by such conduct, in effect grants the additional time, and the party is not strictly in default. (Id.) 6. ENTRY OF DEFAULT-PRIVILEGE.-The entry of the defendant's default is no more than a privilege which may or may not be exercised by the plaintiff, and when it has not been taken advantage of before the defendant files his answer he cannot be regarded strictly as in default. (Id.) See Broker, 3; Claim and Delivery; Contract, 6, 9; Deed, 2; PLEDGE. 1. SURRENDER FOR SALE ON EXECUTION Loss OF LIEN.-Where certain promissory notes of third parties are deposited with a bank as collateral security for the payment of a note of the pledgor to the bank, and the bank thereafter makes a surrender of the pledged notes for the purpose of having them sold on execution to satisfy a judgment obtained against the pledgor on his note, the lien of the pledgee on such notes is thereby lost. (Gault v. Wiens, 1.) 2. STATUS OF PURCHASER.—The purchaser of such notes at the execution sale acquires only the right, title, and interest of the pledgor therein, and takes the same subject to all equities which might have been pleaded in an action thereon brought by such pledgor. (Id.) 3. SALE OF NOTES-VIOLATION OF DUTY BY PLEDGEE-PURCHASER AT SALE NOT INJURED.—The purchaser at such a sale cannot complain that the pledgee had no right to sell the notes or do otherwise than collect them at their maturity and apply the proceeds upon the liability of the pledgor, as the provision of section 3006 of the Civil Code prohibiting sales by pledgee is designed for the benefit of the pledgor, who may waive it. (Id.) POLICE OFFICER. 1. DISMISSAL FOR UNBECOMING CONDUCT-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.— An order dismissing a police officer for conduct unbecoming an officer is warranted by evidence to the effect that he, knowing that a robbery was being perpetrated, gave his revolver to another, and allowed the latter to interfere and kill the robber. (Donovan v. Police Commissioners, 392.) 2. VIOLATION OF RULE CHARGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE PENALTYJURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONERS.-The jurisdiction of the board of police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco to dismiss an officer from the department is not affected by the fact that no penalty had been previously prescribed for the violation of the particular rule which the officer was charged with violating, in view of the rule providing that any conduct unbecoming an officer, and offenses against the rules and regulations of the department, shall subject the offender to such penalty as in the judg ment of the board may be proper under the law, and in view of the provisions of the charter of the city and county giving the board the power to prescribe penalties for the violation of any rules of the department, and that any member guilty of such violation shall be liable to punishment by reprimand, or by fine to be fixed by the commissioners, or by dismissal from the department. (Id.) 3. VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT - WAIVER OF DEFECTS.-Where upon the trial of a police officer before the board of police commissioners, no objection is made by him as to the verification of the complaint upon which the trial is had, any defect therein is thereby waived. (Id.) 4. DISQUALIFICATION OF COMMISSIONER RECORD MATTER NOT REVIEWABLE.—The prejudice of one of the commissioners against the officer cannot be considered on certiorari to review the order dismissing the officer, where such disqualification is not made to appear upon the face of the record of the proceeding sought to be reviewed. (Id.) See Certiorari; Municipal Corporations, 5. POLICE POWER. See Intoxicating Liquors, 2. PRACTICE. 1. MOTION FOR NONSUIT-CONSTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE.-A motion for a nonsuit admits the truth of the plaintiff's evidence and every inference of fact that can be legitimately drawn therefrom, and upon such a motion the evidence should be interpreted most strongly against the defendant. (Jones v. Mayden, 23.) 2. INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AFTER DENIAL OF MOTION - RULE.Where evidence on the part of both plaintiff and defendant is admitted after a motion for a nonsuit is denied, the order will not be |