Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-10
THE SUPREME COURT.
Rulings Made by Their Honors at
This Days Session.
THE CHURCH CASE MENTIONED.
appeal Concerning an Assessment
Lo'I.-And Another Agaius, tho
Order Of Referee.

At this morniug's session OF the
Territorial Supreme court all the
Judges were present, namely, Chief
Ju'lice I,no, Associate Justlcss Miner,
Bnrlch sni Smith. The minute. Of
Saturday were rsud by Clerk Baehe
and confirmed, aud after some other
Preliminary matters had been run
through mention was made "
THE RECEIVERS ACCOUNTS.
Hon. +. >. Richards aross Ani said
Il understand, your hopofs, that the
master appointed tho other day to ex.
smlne the accounts OF the receiver la
the case Of the u. ). W the late cor.
poraiiun Of the Church OF Jcsus Christ
OF batter.iay SAINTS Ia realty to report.
Judge Zane--Lut u 10 iiloi.
Attorney Richards Tue court will
not act upon II this morning, thon2
Judge Iane-No, without au oppor.
tunity ~ examine It.
Attorney Richards observed that tho
rtpjri OF Master Bacno had been sub.
mitted u all the parties concerned; tho
decree had been prepared In accord.
ancc Herewith, aud counsel, IN now
submitting 1t, asked that 1t be entered
TINS afternoon " convenient to the
court.
SHORT BuLiN0s.
Ia the case Of TEos. Borlafe, res.
pondent, w Helen NJ Morgan at nl,
appellants, tnu appeal was dismissed.
In the case Of Albeit H.. Emotioh,
respondent, VI Ogden city, appellant,
tbs appeal was dismissed.
Ia the case Of Il. ;. Bonesteel,
respondent, vs. w. II. Fairchild OF al
appellants, the motion to dismiss APP
peal was allowed.
la the case u Vim. Bailey ct Al, mp.
peliAuIs, " sidney Stevens ct hl,
IespohucnF, the appeal was ditmlsied
without prejudice.
la thv Gaso Of T. NJ. Ferin, ap.
pcilant, Va g. w. WAnsgaard ct al,
tue motion to dismiss appeal was
pllOwtd.
Ia the case Of Harry r. Duke,
respondent, W George q. Gnfiith, 40.
peiiani, the motion 10 dismiss appeal
was overTuleJ.
Ia the case OF Cache osunty Va
ffel j. hle'el OF al, appellants, tho
hollon 10 settle statement was denied.
NO WRITTEN OPINIONS.
Their Donors did not hand down
any written opinions today.
ABOUT An ASSESSMENT LEVY.
THE fret case argued by counsel was
that OF Jamva NJ. Gary et al, appel.
lanu, vs. the YORK Mining company ct
a. respondents. The former were
represented by Attorney &. s. Vafian
ahd Judge Llo!Oout0w; McDowellAnd
Lyslcs were attorneys isr the respond.
ents. IL was an appeal from the Thifd
district, Judge BaTich'. division.
The principal question involved in
this appeal was whether corporation
whoau articles provided that "no a..
sussment shall be levied until the
working capital shall have bseu
exhausted" can levy an az.
seasment upon the fullpald stock
while the stock cot apart for working
capital remains unimpairud, the cof-
poraii0n having msde sOmo effort
found by the court below 10 be reason.
hblv-tO dispose OF the WORKING capital
without avail. The capital stock was
ilViJoi into 100000 shares, fully paid
~, 10000 shares having been set apart
Tor working capital On the part Of the
respondents 1t Is c1n,en led that tho
SQUIRT erred In rendering Judgment
lpon the findings Ia favor VI the dc.
endAnts because II appeared that tho
contract between the stockholders, sst
oflh Ia the articloi Of Incorporation,
Tor the setting apa.t OF GER
ain treasury stock for working capital,
ND that all the stock being fully paid
~ no assessment should be levied
Intil huch working capital should be-
ome exhausted.
The casH was submitted after a
sngthy argument.
ANOTHER APPEAL.
The noxt case Tot argument was that
Z Wilbur ;. Henderson, plaintiif aud
esp1ndont, represented by Attorney
frank Pierce, VI Daniel IurngTeen
I nl, dtitnunuis and appellants. Couu-
81 Tor the latter were Goodwin and
IAN Peit.
The WasA,ch Stone company, an
nsolVent mluing cOTpg ration, was
IgnuizlI ~ thu defendants with
Ominal capital Of $4,000, divided
lIo 5JOO shares. IL IL alleged that
here were no actual subscriptions, but
tue organization the defendants,
eootding 10 agreement, took all the
lare1 IN return Tor certain mining
'cations, The articles state the stock
AS lssued AS FULLY PAID, aud that
ne half OF II was contributed
J working capital. Prior 90 the
lining locations agricultural patents
vi been issued 10 other paTties, anu
was conleudod by tho respondent
lat for this reason the locations were
bid aud constituted no consideration
T issuance OF stock. The respondent
itained judgment against tie com.
my on which execution was Issued
~ returned unsatls1ed. Action WAS
en- brought upon the judgment by
spondent against these defendants;
was tried before a referee and re-
ltod Ia favor Of the respondent. A
)tlun for new trial was maize but
niedi hence the present appeal.