Kunz

This is the appeal referred to in the opinion filed this day in the other appeals in the case of John F. Runs, plaintiff and respondent, v. California Trona Company et al., defendants and appellants, (S. F. No. 6901), ante, p. 348, [ 146 Pac. 883 ], and reference is made to the opinion on that appeal for a more particular statement of the circumstances under which this and the actions embraced therein were tried in the superior court. This action was to recover on one of the three promissory notes mentioned in the appeal in the other cases—the note of January 5, 19-11, for the sum of five hundred dollars. The pleadings and issues between the . plaintiff and defendants as to this note are the same as there. The actions were all tried together and the points made for a reversal of the judgment and order denying a new trial as far as the right of the plaintiff to recover on the note in this action is concerned, are identical with those presented and considered in the other appeals and for the reasons therein given the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the order denying the motion of the defendant for a new trial are affirmed.

This appeal, however, involves questions other than…