The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-12-03

press trust, as this is; and in that case the
law is that the statute will not commence
to run until the trustee, by some equivocai
conduct, brought to the attention OF the
cestui que trust, renounces the trust. LII Is
said in this case that Sarah Blazzard, the
lawful wife, several years previous TO the
death of John H. Blazzard, on account OF
his cruel treatment towards her, and, there
is evidence to show, partly on account OF his
marrying other women, left him and went
some three hundred miles into the county
of Washington, near ST. George, and lived
there; that they were ignorant, and neither
she nor her children were informed as to
their rights, and that they never had any
notice that Mary Ison Blazzard was holding
this property adversely to them, or holding
it subject to the provisions of the will and
not in accordance with the trust
provided. l am of the opinion that
where trustee remains in possession
and control of the property, the statute OF
limitations will not apply, unless on ac-
count of laches. In these cases of equity
the law by analogy applies the statute OF
limitations very often where, as before
! stated, by unequivocal adverse possession,
where the trust tee has brought the fact to
| the attention of his beneficiareS that he
| is holding adversely to them, and re-
nounces the trust, the statute of limita-
| L
that the statute of limitations should not
apply to the Fourteenth ward tract.
| The other tract stands upon different
principles. Lydia Blazzard was living
upon that property. She was holding and
claiming to hold by virtue of the will.
| That will professed to give her the right 10
the possession and use of it, and i'm
mediately on her death, according to the
will, it passed to these heirs. She and her
children were in possession some eighteen
that was hostile to the trustee
under this deed. 1t is true that
Lydia Blazzard and her children recog
nized Mary Ison Blazzard as the executrix
of the estate, and recognized her as having
some rights with respect to the properly
under the will and as executrix; but the
evidence think shows that Lydia for her
children never recognized the right of
Mary Ison Blazzard as trustee for these
plaintiffs. Lydia claims by virtue of the
will. and her children claim by virtue Of
the will. 1t is true that the will did not
pass the title to them, but they claimed it,
and held possession according to it; and if
any one had gone there and asked Lydia
, Blazzard what her claim was to that prop
erty, she would have said that she claimed
it because the will gave her the right to it,
and gave her children the right to it. l do
not think the evidence would leave any
, room for doubt on that point. She claims
, under the provisions of the will, and the
plaintiffs claim under the provision of the
, deed. The deed they say gave the prop
, erty to them. Lydia Blazzard and heI
children say that the will gives it to them
Their possession and claim was antagon-
istic, and was hostile to the claim of Mary
, 1son Blazzard and these cestui que trusts
under the deed.
! The question therefore arises, will the
m NV n
! this case! Here is hostile possession ant
! claim in direct conflict with the claim o.
these plaintiffs and with the claim of Mary
Ison Blazzard, as she must have made it i
she were holding for the plaintiffs. Lydis
= Blazzard does not claim under the trus
: created by the deed. She claims under TIT
: provisions of the will, and that the will
!. controlled the right, and should transfer i
J from Mary Ison Blazzard under the deed Il
> her; whereas, the plaintiffs claim that tn
J deed passed it to them; and as think tina
!. that provision of the statute of uses woult
apply which would pass the title to them i
they demanded it, because I am of tn
J. opinion that that statute OF use
!. is regarded as passing witt
= the common law into this country
L L and this territory, being settled up by tn
y people of the United States who ha
9 adopted the common law, the common lay
" was to be brought with them, as well a
y this statute cot uses. But l am of tn
d opinion that inasmuch as the position o
% Mary Ison Blizzard to this Fourteent
:. ward property was at least equivocal, sh
- could be holding under the deed or unde
= the will; she might be claiming unde
% either, according TO the provisions Of tn
will or according TO the provisions of til
Is deed. Rightfully she should have hel
under the provisions of the deed, whic
u gave it to the lawful heirs; but am in
. clined to the opinion that she understood
J. herself to be holding according to the Pre-
~ visions of the will, and not under the deet
:. l am of the opinion, therefore, and s
u " fud, that the statute of limitations apple
Ie as to the tract in the Seventh ward, hel
10 and possessed by Lydia Blazzard and be
10 children, and that 1t does not apply to til
g property in the Fourteenth ward. l al
further of the opinion that John Blazzart
as the imbecile, is not barred by the statute
1r limitations; that he has a right to on
AZ fourth interest in all this property, and
D: far IS the defendants have received II
le rents and profits of this Seuenth wal
dC property, he is entitled to one-fourth
Y them, and to recover that against them.
ne to the Fourteenth ward PROPERTY, so far
~ these defendants have received the rem
al and profits, the plaintiffs in this case a.
u entitled to recover. 1 am further Of I'll
opinion that as to the Fourteenth wal
gu property, so far as any alterations ha,
d been made, the purchasers took it wit
or out notice Of the rights of these plaintiff
nd The Salt Lake Plumbing, Steam and G.
nd Fitting Co. makes sanitary plumbing
speciality. Prompt attention given to
VI. kinds of jobbing. Store room in baseme
on Of Constitution building.
OF James G. Mcdonald & Co., candies. y
" NCu nDp.DrJrpr