Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-13
THE SUPREME COURT.
Miscellaneous Business Before Tho
Judges This Day.
a rnRrE.rounrns VERDICT CASE.
Brokers' Claim for Commisslon-An
Appeal to tho L. :. supreme
Court

Inc AtFfllDflht supreme Iohrt cone
veuud hgalu today, aud the follow ng
is an outline Of what has been donyi
ugiNg TO TIE q. g. sUrREME COURT.
In tho case OF the American Pub.
fishing Co. VI tho Fisher Brewing Co.,
tho decision In which was rendered
yesterday, the uoud on writ Of error,
taking the cause 10 the U. $. Supreme
Court, was fixed nt 5000.
AS OuiNioS.
Fred W. Wool Go. Va tho Salt Lake
Brewing Co, appellants. Tao judg.
meut OF the lower court was formally
affirmed yesterday, ADD the opinion In
Writing was now handed down.
In this case the plaintiffs obtained a
judgment Ia the Third district court,
the verdict having been signed by nine
Juror; and this latter wss the only
error relied upon on the appeal.
HKOKERs' COMMISSION.
The hr.t case argued was that OF
Lawson Bros. "a. +. and J. h., plain
tils anu respondents, vs. Alfred
Thompson, defendant aud appellant.
Judge Bonnet made the arguments
for tbs ioimor ami Judge Henderson
for the latter
Appeal from the Third district court
Judge Bar,ch presiding.
! fIhNH uwfN.f. FUu.
by plaintiffs RgAins. defendant to rc.
cover fora commission a. real estate
bTokofs, it being alleged that Thom...
son employed them Ia September,
letb, during the boom days, - procure
putchasur for certain premises for tbs
SUN Of sts,OUO. Plaintiff, say they
W"rs N have per cent commission,
au- that they eventually introduced
John A. Groesbsck as ready anu will
log 10 negotiate. Tho answer deuiui
the employment, the agreement 10 pay,
Or that plaintiffs found purchaser.
The case was tried before Jury, vs.
found tor the plaintiff. Motion Tor "A
new trial was Overfuiei, anu from this
ruling the appeal Ia taken.
ABOUT SOME PROPERTY.
Next on tho list wAu the case Of
Phyllis NJ. Cook, plaintiff and appel
LIANT, VI Geo. Higley Jr. and tho Mid
dlesex Banking company, defendants
aud respondents.
Attorney a. II. Haywood for the
former Attorneys Evans anu RJgsrs
for the latter.
THIS was an appeal from Judge
Miners cOurt-FOurth district-iTom
n iudgms at therein entered sustsining
a demurrer TO plaintiffs complaint anu
dltmissing this.
The complaint alleged, In substance,
that plaintiff II the wife OF ThUs.
Cook, Iotmerly OF Hooper; that Tor
"a long time prior 10 June, 1853,
they were IN possession OF ctfta n
lands as a homestead, the title thereto
being vested Ia the PLAINTIFF husband,
who In tue June Aforesaid sold tue
premises 10 doieuIaut Hlglpy. Al.
though, a. plaintiff Avers, shu did not
sign the dcei, dtieniant took plsses-
sion, aud uulswiully Oustol her. These
were oil the allegations relating ~
Higluy, who was thu only defendant
served with process. Tue sole ground
OF the demurrer was that the complaint
did not stale iacts suiliclen 10 consti.
tuto a cause Of action,
CONCERNING A EOTE.
Richard Flint, plaintiff and respond.
ent, VI A. II. Nelson, Frank J. CAn.
noun aud a. III. Cannon, defendants
aui appellants.
Attorney a. II. Haywood for the
appellants; KimbAll y Gilbert for the
respondent.
Appeal from the Fourth district
court-Judge Miner.
On June 3ri, 1892, the respondent
commenced an action against appel
lants as makers of Joint anl seyorsl
note made April 9TH, 1891, Tor 50, 700,
maturing April I'm, 1897. Answering
lhis, the appellants Allege that plain
TN never was owner Or nOldBr VI the
note, which they state was made With
out auy consideration, and that Flint
obtained possession thereof wr0ngiully,
ani delivery WAS by mistake, all OF
which he well know, a hearing was
had IN Dec, 1898 AuI n verdict found
Ia favor Of plaintiff Tor s., is7 81.
tbs motion Tor q now trial, on the
ground Of errors iu law, was overruledi
ana from this judgment an appeal II
] fabian