Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-15
THE SUPREME COURT.
An Opinion Rendered 10 The YORK
Hining Company Litigation.
A CASE AFFECTING TUE AO.U. W.
The Ogden Clay Company Figures In a
suit as Plaintiff aud Respondent
Today, Business.

The Judges Of the Territorial Supreme
Csur, resumed tholr sitlings today In
connection with the January term.
An OF them were prevent when the
nofnlng session opened, but ~ soon ~
Cbtof Justice Zane had read the ouly
opinion TO be handed down Associate
Iuttce Miner retired IRON Tue bench
g4ilr a case from his district was
under argument
IrlaE nAHICH WAS RIGHT.
James McGaffy, q. =. Vatian aud
g. Il. L1ulbJutOw, appellant, Va tho
Yors Mining company o. ali frHpond-
he plaintiffs were owners Of
% 45 snafes OF paid up STOCK
hi the defendant company, whose
r,pltal stock consisted of 2J0, 700 shares
Id tbs par value Of s. each. BY IT,
articles OF incorporation $4,000 shares
,vofr spt apart " bo used ia developing
Ia mine, all the rect being subscribed.
Tbr articles also provided that no A.
sa.sment ahould be levied ON any "
tne stock tor any purpose until the
.iock 20 sct apart should be exhausted.
Itslto aupeafel that tne Indebtedness
ofthp company due for working aud
developing the mine was ,3lJ, ana
lrat there was no money in the
treasury 20 ply n; that thc directors
failed 10 sell any Of the stock upon
rstsonablu Effort 10 do so; that tnvy
made nb astpatmcnt " ] cunis per
fhnfc upon all the subscribed stIcE
thtt plhinufis ALLIED ~ pay the assess.-
mrnt Oh thulfs; that tue difcctjrs
ordered tho collection Thereof; tnnt
up1u due notice plaiuiilr' stock
Was sold TO pny such assessment
ana that the company became tho lur'
chaser. From the decree Vt tue court
fellow declaring tho company the Legal
holder ui the stock 20 utuuaatd the
p.ainun prosecuted the present appeal.
TuuIf houou iound no eTIDr la the
record aud affirmed the judi OF
the lower clurl Judge Btttch.l
4uE A.. o. q. ". AND ils MENuEHs
The dfot case argued thus morning
vas tuat Of ID mis- Daimler, plaiuuu
aud arupliC, VI tie Grand Lolgu An.
rIgff order Uf United MUtkmuu, iurn-
uiei0n uf Nuvnin, anu all iniiviuu u
mrmbgfs Of all lodges within huu uuuCf
t0aifol % tho ahulr, defendants AMI
appellants.
ihis was an appeal Of the defendant
EIe.uiy from Judgment trudcicI
nsaIust them Ia tue district court VI
Weber county. The du.yndant h. the
governing body Ut ~ uuiucofpoiaitd
voluntary, beneficiary ORDER consist
lux OF itsrlt anu ubIut one hundred
Local luIfrY, at the time the action was
brought distributed observation-disclosures,
Utah, Wyoming, Montana aud Idaho,
such local l0dscH being secret ufgnul.
Elii3na governed by the laws enacted
by the rmnj lodge, Tho failure ~
pay usscf-mrnt', Il II stated, Tor the
beneficiary fuud within the time pre-
fcfiUUd ~ the laws OF the order ~
eycry case constituted suspension, and
% was now contsndud on the part VI
tho appellants that the court below
erred IN claiming that the ouo dollar
paid into the subordinate lodge by the
member to maintain his good standing
ia the order was advance niss-s.
mont" II II upon THIS point the Gaze
hangL
on A PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT.
The next case on cali was that Of the
Ogden Clay company, plaintiff aud
respondent, w w. IA. Harvey ct al,
defendants anu appellants. This ohiel
question involved was whether the
tiFBing Of the preliminary subscription
or agreement bound Harvey 10 pay tu
the company tho amount subscribed
by him Tor twenty shares.