Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-11
A Controversy Respecting Oh. Right
OF Possession 10 LAM.
TWO CASES FROM OGDEN CITY.
One In which the Power Company is
The Central Figure: About Ia.
paid Subscriptions.

G. Whltmore, the Nophi baDkut ,he
appeal was ordered dismissed owing 10
the failure to Die transcript.
Beulah A. Boattio vs. John J. By.
non. Dismissed.
Cache County Va Fred j. Kieicl.
Dismissed on motion Of appellant.
ALLOWED TO CowE ~
Mr.. Charles j.. Brown, o. member Of
the bar Of the supreme court Of
Nebraska, was admitted to practice la
this court, on motion Of Attorney Os-
den Hilrs.
PROM T1GE fJuRTn DISTRICT
Then came tie legal arguments In
the case VI Harry r. Duke, plaintiff
und respondent, " George q. Grmih,
de'enlant and appellant u wls an
appeal from Judge AiHeIis court
Fourth district.
The action was tried January 18th,
| 1898. Respondent br0ught tuit " a.
clvrr tom Grifli certain piece VI
laud containing I95.lOO.arrrP, more or
less, Oh which no alleged nu WIS the
owner Ia fee and iu pDsuessloL; that on
August l3ih, lsJJ, the appellant un.
iHwiuliy entered upon tuo same aud has
liagu occupied u. Answering THE,
| the appellant denied the gCHpludenus
/ hight OF possession hud himself clainioI
/ Tho LAND undrrH ton ytarai Iuasr irlm
Que h.. "a. Crth. Damage, yalu5 o.
rents, issuu', etc., were placed at s., 0UO
aui costs. a verdict was rendered on
tha trial la favor OF tho refplnden, Tor
p0sstssion Of tho land auS Judgment
was entered accordingly. A motion
was msdU for "a new Trial; this was
denied, anu hrucs the tppual.
4 NUMBER IN m
Peter Wilson, plaintiff aud appellant,
W Fred J. Kiustl 1t al, gelUuiauts anu
! respondents, anu Peter Miitgu, plain.
| ia aud respondent, w Frank j. Can.
/ non and the Ogden Poser 70. II al,
Defendants aud appellants.
This WaA an action 10 subject unpaid
subscriptions o. the capital stock OF the
| Ogden Power company o. tho claim Of
tie plnntiu Wilson, he bel "a ludg.
ment creditor, anu tho two suits were
argued separately.
TheOgden Power company, II seems,
| filcd articles OF iucofp0fatiln on Arm
| lith, 1880. the defendants Kicscl, Oar.
nahan aud Audefa1n having signed
the same on the preceding DAY AZ sub
scribefs, each Tor s., 900 worth OF stooF,
anu also executed a deed she o0nsi Ser.
alton beiug 100000 tor certain lauJ
which they owned anu which was
needed for corporation purp 500, u1dcf
agreement that $4,000 oi tho conaid-
Grafton was 10 be phyinont oi
their subscriptions anu lhe bal.
anco 10 he evidenced by two
notes secured by mortgage on
tho land. All OF this was carried out
Ny resolution Of the board " directors
April 2jIh VI the same year. Paid W
certificates were ~ once itdusi 10
them. On March let, prior thereto,
plaintiff entered into tue contacts; ON
March IAN no commenced actual
work hereunder, csaaing on May 10 b.
On May 10 he died complaint hrAlnit
the Power mpAng, uuuanolnE 49,.
400. 10 i0r WORK done under tntsu oia-
tractA; wflt OF AttachmUn. duly i0susd
aud tue and above conveyed was levied
on. The Power cOmI any hloI ysfilei
answer denying spsolhcally tnal thuy
owed plainuii anything OF that he
was damaged In ANY SUN whatever.
/ VI wv sgHAA NhH NHhNAAAA lNI
piAintin by consent oi the de onlAnts'
attorneys, under the direction OF thelr
president, ioT tho full amguut cla!mud;
no execution WAS ordered until june
| l7th., 1892, anu that was flied wltu a
Huiid bona return on tue 22ud Of lhu
same month. ThgreupOn creditor,
bill action was br0ush " suhlecl uu.
paid subscriptions to tho capital stock
Of the Power company 10 the Judgment
OF plaintiff, alleging that all the de-
fendRnts, aud likewise plaintlii, sub
scribed ~ the articles Of Incorporation
aud had not paid their subscriptions.
The court below Fourth distriu. found
that hieseI, CaTuahAu aud Anderson
had paid, but that the other de enuanlB
hRd not, and gave luigment against
them. PiAintiiis moved i0t nrw trial as
regards the finding As 10 lhe three de.
ienuauls named, which wHa denied,
aud from winch they now appealed;
Cannon aud the remaining defendants
appeal from the portion OF the judy
ment which IL against item.
Attorney A. II. Haywood Of Ogden
represents the defendants kiesel OF al;
Judges Sutherland and HJwat, A tlof.
new Ogden Hiles, and Attorney J.. IA,
McMuiAn (Ogden) appeAt In the in-
torest OF Wilson.
ABOUT A NOTE.
In the Supreme court yesterday
afternoon the oass Of Jamua Anderson,
apI ellanI, vs. the Yosemite Mining
company came up The plaintiff sued
In the lower court TO collect s4,5SU
alleged 10 be due on pT0missOry note.
The defendants denied that Anderson
was the holder Of the note, and alleged
that lac assigned II some time before,
after which the company was sued
and judgment rendered against them
Tor the identical debt rho case Was
tried before Judge Blrloh IN the lower
court, ana he found TOT lhe defendants.
The case WAS submitted On briefs,