Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-03-22
THE SUPREME COURT
A Decision Affecting Soldiers Add.
tional Homestead E1iTes.
ABOUT Az ACTION IN rRoyrh


The judges OF tho Territorial 5u.
pfeme Court have been iu session
again today. Two opiuious came
down this morning.
WILL ADJOURN TOMORROW
Tue chief justice announced that
upon tho Adjournment OF couft tlmgf.
row tFhdsyl afternoon no further
tttngs wound taks place until the
June term, aud that all Cases now
argued would not be- passed upon ull
then.
q. 8. sUrmAtE COURT MANDATE.
Ia the case Of T0lani W Corey, the
mandate Of the supreme Court OF tho
Uni,od States was flod affirming the
Judgment Of this court.
Motion to modify tue judgment was
made, and the samU was ordered 10 DO
submitted 10 whiting.
TINS is tAroUANE
The opinion la lho case %, John j.
Montague, appellant W George McCaf.
roll, ruspunuuui, was delivered by
Judge Smith, Judge Miner ulucurflut.
(Arpenl from IhirI diutuC.-tK.Chiv
JustiuuZ iuu.l
Inis matter involved a single qusi.
u n-Can the grantee OF what h.
known rs "a soldiers additional home.
stead scrip Hhsign tue same bciufe
entry, 10 as ~ convey 10 bio rrautuu
tue ttc suustqIoutiy acquifed from
tue government. II this question is
answered Ia tau uiil fmAtlv,, said tueir
Ayuofs, this ua.u must bv tuyeirr4.
The facts but Il stated hro tuAt one
Adulph Aaukuainmuf, bUlnf uuutloI
10 maze an additional homestead uutfy
under teutOn 28JJ, assigned bis uEnt
" cutry 10 one Humingfay. Plaintiff
appellant hurvJ traced his little
through Hemiu ray, while tho dtfund-
ant tr iccd hH utlu 10 "a conveyance
directly from Haukhammuf, made
siucl the issuu Of patent. rho fight 10
an uddliiOuui homestead entry Tor the
suldlcib aud officers OF the late war
was granted by See. 23Oj OF the &c.
viuHd statutes Of the UnliUi states,
which was now quoted. This statute,
tald tho court, Ia IT. present form, was
enacted March 3fd. 1873, and thfee
things must concur Ia order 10 Uutitlu
person 10 clalm the fight. flut, ho
must be one Of thC pUrsYns enumerated
iu.Suc. 2J1i, viz, h Uniln soldier or
oiiicer IA tue late war VI the rebellion,
honorhhly discharged. Second, hr
must have entered a homestead under
the homestead laws PRIOR 10 March SGD,
1873. Third, such entry must have
been for less than 100 acres. These
three thlnga concurflug, II appeared
that the grant was absolute. aud
the question here pres n cd, a. before
stated, was, could this night " entry
be assigned beyond location OF entry
OF the land under ~ Tho COURTS
investigation Of this convinced II that
authorities directly on tho point were
not numerous, aud they seemed 10 be-
somewhat IN conflict. Rose v.
Nevada Lumber Co., 20 Cal, as5;
Mullin Va Wine, 20 F0l. Rep, guU,
Webster W LuthVL o. NV. Rep,
21l; Fourier W BafuuH, 81 Fel Rer.,
$50 on the affirmative side, ani
Macintosh Va Reut0u, o Pac. Ron,
$50; Nichols W Council ~ AN. 81,
Rup., .Oi Anderson Va Cofkins,
lsj u. =, ass, on the negative
were quoted from. From these
decided cases II would be found
the great weight Of authority, both
state aud federal, was IN favor OF the
proposition that tbs right Of addition.
al homestead entry secured by
SEQ. .3JB was asslgnADle. Their non.
ors thought, also, that right reason la.
dictated this was sy; no doubt tue right
10 an additional hImesluAI was Intent.
cd by Congress ~ a gtatuily TO the
honOfabiy discharged Uuion soldier OF
the war Of the rebellion. Tho require.
ment that tho additional Homestead
should be contiguous 10 the original
homestead, NJ ut nfsl enacted, had
been stricken uul; aud this was signif.
can't The additional homestead mIgut
be- located ON any uuucoupled public
land, subject 10 entry. 10 require
residences anu nOu.AlitnAtiOn, or either
OF them. would IA nearly every case
practically uestfoy the value Of the
grant.
This court was Of opinion that the
right 10 an additional homestead entry
was RssignAble, and the court below
having held otherwise ana rejected
the Hssignment AMI other title pagers
of the appellant, the judgment should
be reversed anu n new trial granted.
IL was 10 ordered.
II WAS An ACuON ~ TROvER.
Judge Barloh rend tho opinion Ia Tho
case Of Louis Hyams aud john A.
Erwin, appellants, We Simon BANTER.
ger aud o, J. Salisbury, Fesp0nIsnt..
appeal from eE.Chief JuftiOs Zane,.
COURT
IL was an action IN troyer 10 recover
damages for tho wrongful conversion |
OF three promIsofy uoIrs, secured by |
% 900 shares Of stock VI tbs bullion. |
Beck anu Champion Mining %.
The notes were male by john Beck In |
favor OF the plaiuun hyams. The case
was tried before n referee, who found, |
substantially, that tho plaintiffs, on |
November 1911, 1891, after tender gnd |
demand for the notes we're the owners |
Of the collateral uUler aud stock, sun.
ject u lien iu favor 0i tho uelendauts
Tor the sum OF .5,7is aud were entitled
10 the possession Of sue notes. that the
defendants, by the wrongful 10
iusal 10 comply with tho de.
mand Of the plaluuus Tor their
unllWiuly converted
the SAME TO their own uses aud that
the measure " p.ainnl'r manages wa,
tho value Of the properly convection.
which was found 90 me- $1,000, les,
ss,1iS lien thereon, or 500 Tor which
a.. 4