The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-06-13
IT MUST BE PAID.
The Supreme Court Delivers an
Important Opinion
IN THE UTAH G NEVADA CASE.
A Stay of Proceedings for Thirty Days
Granted-AnOther DiYOrce-0ther
Legal Business.
IN THE UTAH & NEVADA CASE.

In the supreme court yesterday, Judge
Anderson delivered the following opinion
in the case of Matilda Openshaw VS.. the
Utah & Nevada railway company, Judges
Zane and Judd concurring:
Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the district
court against the defendant for 5000 and costs
as damages for negligently causing the death oil
the husband of the plaintiff, Matilda Openshaw
The defendant appealed TO this court ana AT the
January term, 1883, thereof, the judgment oil the
district court was affirmed. Thereupon appel
liant moved this court 10 fix the amount OF a
superSedeas bond and also BOND foI
costs on appeal to the supreme court OF
the United States, whereupOn respondent
offered to remit all Of said Judgment IN excess
of 5000. The offer Of respondent 10 remit was
denied and the motion of appellant was granted
and the amount of the SuperSedeaS Donu IXeu AT
SlQODO and the bond for costs on appeal at 500.
March II, 1889, appellant filed superseueas
bond for costs, which was duly approved, ana on
said day duly sued a writ of error and TOOK ali
the necessary steps to remove the cause 10 the
supreme court Of the United states. Inc res
pondents now move this court TO remit IT'S ludg-
ment in said case to the district court from
which the appeal was taken, IN order that the
same may be carried INTO erect, lot
the reason that VIII OF error
was not allowable from SAID Jung.
ment because Il did not exceed the sum OF
s. 600 and that therefore the supreme court OF
the United States could not take gurlsuicl-oh
thereof and that said writ OF error ana al lhe
proceedings TO remove Jhe CduSt W IAldI OCIl
are void and should be dismissed and set aside.
Il is insisted by respondent that this case IS
identical in all material points. with the case OF
the District of Columbia vs.. Cannon recently
decided by the supreme court OF the United
States (Supreme c, urt Reporter, vol. y, p. JOe)
wherein il was held that a judgment 1or s0,uOO
damages and costs. which had been appealed
from the supreme court OF the DISTRICT OF 20
lumbia to the general term, and there aInrIeI
with COSTS but not with Interest was not review
ah,e in the supreme court OF the United STATES
G7i'sl writ Of error because not lhNo OWING AOIe
than 5000. .,.,
On behalf of the appellant, II IS contended
that as the statutes OF Utah allow interest at
the rate OF 10 per cent per annum on judgments
where no rate of int crest is specified. lSectlonS
PIG and 1898 compi!ed laws 1851 Ihat sald
Judgment when affirmed in this court exceeded
In amount the sum of 5000 TO the extent OF the
accumulated interest, and therefore thls cast
does not come within the rule laid down IN Jhe
case of the District of Columbia IS. Canon,
Supra. 49,. At. oo,o ,o,,,os
within the rule laid down in the case cited ana
that this court has not lost its jurisdiction by
reason Of the issuance of said writ OF error; that
respondent is entitled to have the judgment re
Unitted to the district court, and the motloh Is
accordingly sustained
A stay of further proceedings for thirty
days was granted.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Richard Steele, respondent, VS.. L. D
Boley. appellant; argued and submitted.
w. p. Bennett, plaintiff and respondent,
VS.. NJ. Shaughnessy, ct al. defandant ana
appellant: argued and submitted