Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-06-06

the Territorial Supreme court.
ABOUT Az ASSIGNED NOTE.
Judge Baflch rendered the courl's
opinion in the case Of tie National
Bank o.. the Republic, respouden;,v W. II.
Il. Hapgo1d, James Thompson, Mary
l.. Christian and Theodore Burmcstor.
This was an gc.ion 10 fofeciose a
mortgage given 90 secure a noto Tor
$1,000, the nots having been given by
the defendant Hapgood % Thompson.
The latter assigned the note 10
Christian, who aisiguod 20 TO plaintiff.
Thompson ana Christian guaranteed
payment. After this suit was begun
Christian paid the note to plaintiff,
aud the action was continued IN tho
banks name, for the benefit Of Chris
uan. A decree Of foreclosure was
made and the mlrtgaged promises or
dorei sold. The defendant BurmeuloT
was purchaser, subject 10 tho mOrl-
gnge. The defendant Hapgood ap.
pcaled from the Judgment.
Ibe only question preaontcd by the
appeal wa whotheraner Christian paid
the debt t. plaintiff IL could prosecute
the action to Judgment for her benefit.
Tho court now quoted, among othcrs,
the case Of Mas Va 5iesr, 80 Cal, 4gs,
In which Il was held that this section
OF the California case not only allowed
a recovery Of the land sued for In the
name Of the original plaintiff, but also
/ permitted a recovery OF tents ana
profits after the sale and up 10 the day
I VI trial. This would appear to be
much moro doubtful case Khan tho one
" bar. Iuis court adopted this Htc.
/ ton 81 the California code after the
construction given In the above case,
aud others, had been made anu was
inclined 90 follow such construction.
/ Hence their Aouofs found there was
/ 10 error IN the record and affirmed the
| Judgment Of the lower court, with coBts
10 the respondent.
Judge Miner concurrcd.
me oAss nIrE CASE.
In the case Of the People ~ Casa
/ HE, who was sentenced 10 .wplve
yegH In the penitoEtinry for murder at
/ drocn ltlveb the ro-neuung was denied.
Au exception was taken aud notice OF
q writ OF error given.
ANOTHER REIGEAmsG DENIED.
In the case OF Wolf Marks ana
Annie Mates, his wife, VI John 4.
sullivan, n re-hearing was also de.
MED.
Az INTERESTING LEdAL POINT
The opiniOn.f the court In the case
| OF Morrlson, Merrill & company and
tho Spencer ywnter company, ap-
pellnuts, Va The Cnrcy.LombArd com.
pany, respondent, was also delivered by
Judge Barton, aud II was quite a
lengthy one.
The owner OF lot Ia this lolly con.
/ traoted with a builder TO erect a real.
denoo thereon. Appellants ana
respondents were ali sub.oontfac.
tors IN the first degree under
/ the principal contractor. They
oil furnished material for usn therein.
and, upon the principal contractors
failure to pay in full, flied notices on
mechanics lien against the pfopefty.
Suit was instituted by thesB partius ip
the rnird district court aud ths cause
was tried ON an agreed statement OF
facts. On Ru accounting between the
owner OF the property ana the chief
contractor II was asceftaincd that there
WAS duo TO the latter the sum OF a., 800,
aud by agreement Of the appellants
aud respondents the Ownor'a property
| was released OF the lieus upon his nav.
ment OF that sum into court. Tgo
/ property Of the owner having been
released, the main question Tor detef-
miDntion was the hight Of priority 10
the fund paid into court as between
/ the sub-cOntrnotoTs,
Upon IN ug oed statement OF facts
| the trial court entered Judgment
against the principal contractor Tor the
several amounts stated therein and In
favor OF the sub.cOniTactors, and, AZ 10
| the sum paid Into court, judgment
was entered Ia favor Of the Carey.
Lombard Company. From this the
present appeal was taken, the sole
question rgisod being AS to whether
the lien Of each OF the several claim.
ants attached on the date Of filIug tbe
| notice for record, or whether n an.
tached on tho date OF furnishing the
| fret material. Sec. I OF the session
laws Of Utah, 1880, p. Is, chap. 8O.
was quoted, the court Temarkiug thai
| from TINS IL would appear that
the Legislature intended to limit
| tne lien Of such persons
as had either expressed or Implied
contracts with the owner Of the nud.
aud that such pogsons should have a
lion for such materials OF work to the
extent OF thoowner's interest or claim
Ia the property Eat the time OF tho
commencement TO do such work or
| furnish such matefials;n and the lien
was extended TO any other greater in
forest which the owner might auquife
In the property thereafter, aud before
the lien Is established by process. OF
law, Every person, said the court,
claiming lien must flle the statement
ss provided IN section 10. Thls was
indispensable to preserve the lien
provided form preceding sectlons;while |
section eleven provided that such !
statement should Ds filed within sixty
| daya 10 case Of the principal contractor |
anu Within forty days in case " u |
suh.coHtraulor In either degree, "niter |
the time when the last work shall have |
been done or the last material shall |
have been furnished" IL was evident |
that the ding Of the statement did moi !
Greats the lien. In the present case
| fIa lIaU1 u9nra abandoned h., 60.