Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-06-13
VICTORY!
The Lawfully Elected City Councillors
Will Take Their Seats.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The "LIberal, Umrpers VIII Have 10
Step Down aud Out

This morning In the case Of the Peo-
pie Of the Territory ex rel. Richard w.
Young, John Fewson Smith and J.
w. Tuddenham, relaton, Va. Louis
Cohn Q. al., appellants, being an ap.
peal from Judge zane's ruling In the
Third district court, the supreme
Court Of the Territory rendered the fol.
lowing opinion, which was delivered
by Justice Miner:
The People II the Territory Of Utah,
by Walter Murphy, prosecuting at.
tJfney Of Salt Lake county, ON relation
of Richard w. Young, William J. Tud-
denham and John Fewson Smith, filed
complaint In the Third district court,
alleging, among other things, that Salt
Lake City II city Of the hnt class,
divided Into flve municipal wards;
that on the 10th day Of February, 1880,
there was nm election held IN said city
for the purpose Of clectlng a mayor aud
fifteen councilmen, three from each
municipal ward, NJ provided by Las, 10 /
serve Ia said city Ms tho city council
thereof for the ensuing two years,
and that at such election said folators |
beiny qualified, were then candidates |
for such ofilco u councllmen In the |
Fourth municipal ward Of Salt Lake |
City, and they each received Of the |
legal qualified votes Of Aald ward, nt |
such election, 4s2 votes, and that no |
other persons were voted for In said |
ward by said electors for said Office,
save the defendants, and that they re-. |
cclved only sos votes each fof said |
office.
That said REALTORS were then and /
there each duly elected TO such office
OF councllmcn, that they had accepted
said ofilccs, and arr ready, willing and
have offered 10 enter upon the dis.
charge of the duty thereof; that fnId
defendants have usurpcd and intfudri
Lotto aud arr now unlawfnlly usurping,
intrudiDg and holding said offices ~
the Injury Of tho people and 10 the
damage Of relAtors, aud ask TO bc All.
judged tho rightiul holders Of said
Office, etc.
10 which complaint tho defendants
nlcd their demurrer on the gIounds:
I. Said amended complaint does not
state facts sufficient 10 constitute n
cause Of action.
.. MlJoindcr OF parties plainiifi In
that each Of tho REALTORS, Young, smith
and TuddenhAD, claims 10 b. entitled
10 an office which Il separate and dis
tlnct from tho office or franchise
claimed by each Of his co.rclators, and
They arc not authorized by statut. 10 he
Ioined In nm action TO establish their
titles 10 separate aud distinct offices.
.. MitJoinpcr OF parties defendant In
aid action, In that II appears that each
VI the aid defendants, Cohn, Noble
aud Hall has usufpcJ aud intrudcd
Into aud 10 holding an office separate
aud distinct from tho ofilc. which IL IL
alleged sach of his co-dcfcndants IL
and holding.
I. Several causes of action have
been Improperly united IN said com.
plaint 10 wit; A rausc Of action By
aid Young 10 determine his right 10
Tho office VI councilman, with causes
n action by Tuddenham aud smith
10 dttefmin- their separai. rights 10
separate offices Of councilmen Of Salt
LhkoClty.
Tn, cfurt overruled the demurrer,
The appellants falling 10 answer, lulg.
nent was entered In favor OF III. ~
ators and against the appellants as
prayed, aud on this ruling and Judg.
mont tho appellants appeal.
THIS action IL brought by the prose.
,uung attorney, under sec. a5gp-a,a1.
y. l.. lsss, 10 determine tho rights OF
he REALTORS 10 such office.
By section 1891, q. l.. 1855, three
were 10 be elected from
his ward NJ tho same time, each 10
iold the Office for two ycars, the term
commences and ends nj Tho
'amr time. Under III. admission
Ia tho ploadings tho appellants
Tef, not elected by u majority Of the
FOt-s Of the ward; but have unlaw.
ully usurped the office, aud now hold
I against the rights VI the people aud /
u tho REALTORS, who were each duly ,
'lcc,cd nj such election.
The contention by the Apnollants'
'ounsel that neither Of tho frlator. q
vas elected 10 oil either ons OF 4
he particular offices held BY /,
my one Of tho appellants shows
hat N suit was brought by
mo Of the r-latofz for tho poaItlon I
ls1rped by ono Of the app.llAuts, great .
Iiiiiculty would 10 found IN ascertain.
ng what particular office OF place
hould DO assigned 10 tho claimant,
nd this contention argues strongly Ia
ay0r OF tho Judgment asked by tho
clators, aud that Il was . proper ludg. !
nent In thuiT favor.
when severai persons claim Ia DO
Untitled 10 the SAME Office or franchise,
ne action may DO brought against all !
uch persons In order 10 Try their .
cspociiye rights 10 such oiiico or
fanchite."
q. l.. 1855, Sec. ASA.
The Joinder Of defendants under this :
iaiuio was Intended 10 protect the
ights Of the people aud 10 prevent a
multiplicity OF actions 10 determine >
he same question based upon onr aud
ne aAn-, or substantially the same,
ight, and relating 10 the same kind OF
haracter Of office, and where the &C.
lou aud defense would necessarily DO
he same or Involve substantially the
ans rights. q
This Is AN action wherein tho people !
must necessarily he plaintiffs, and Il
: uliilpuli Ia a.sa la ,yAat .si,... 49, | n