
    [Sac. No. 2346.
    In Bank.
    October 18, 1915.]
    FINANCE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant. W. W. BASSETT, Respondent, v. SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant. LIZZIE H. GLIDE, Respondent, v. SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant. SPARROW SMITH and W. W. BASSETT, Respondents, v. SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant. J. H. GLIDE and T. S. GLIDE, Respondents, v. SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant.
    [Sac. No. 2347.
    In Bank.
    October 18, 1915.]
    [Sac. No. 2348.
    In Bank.
    October 18, 1915.]
    [Sac. No. 2349.
    In Bank.
    October 18, 1915.]
    [Sac. No. 2350.
    In Bank.
    October 18, 1915.]
    Venue—Drainage District—Compensation for By-pass.—Orders denying motions to change the place of trial reversed on the authority of Gallup v. Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, ante, V. 71.
    
      APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Yolo County refusing to change the place of trial. W. A. Anderson, Judge.
    The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Gallup v. Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, ante, p. 71.
    C. H. Oatman, Sullivan & Sullivan, and Theo. J. Roche, for Appellants.
    A. L. Shinn, and A. C. Huston, for Respondents.
   THE COURT.

The questions presented on the above-entitled appeals are the same as those involved in Gallup et al. v. Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, Sac. No. 2351, decided September 21st, 1915, ante, p. 71, [151 Pac. 1142], and upon the authority of that case the orders appealed from are reversed.  