Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-26
THE SUPREME COURT.
Al Opinion Ia Which a Question or
Authority Vas Involved.
lhe Martha Turner Cases May BE
Apptaled-ES Marshal Parsons
In Another suit.

This bas been dsy Of comparatively
small things In the Territorial Supreme
court, One opini3a was handed down
SUI two cI6es-5ne Of which hal been
continued from ycsierday-weru argued
by counsel.
DENIED.
In the case Of Benson VI Anderson
the petition 10 modify opinion and
decree was dUnitd
nm TURNER CAsEs.
Martha Turner VI the Utah Title,
lnsurancc and Trust Go. Appeal to
tho supreme Court Of the United
stsioa prayed Tor aud that the bond be-
hzoi. Taken under advlsemen,, 70.
mit1iiur stayed two days.
sEiluHE Oh uoous.
An opinion was delivered in the cas-.
Of Brown Bros. 8 Co, plsit ia. and
appellants, " T.. n. Pafsons, defend.
AT anu respondent. Appeal from the
Ihird distriCi-Judgo Zane.
lhe respondent, aa u. =. matshal,
u
Issued Ia the Case Of l.. LlHheiucr OF al
Va Louis LHplncr. An tction was
thun brought IN claim aud delivery 10
recover possession u tho same. Tho
goods were replbvinUd upln tho wrI.
aud delivered over to one Metz, who
was acting ~ agent Tor the plaintiff.
Defendant obtained Judgment Tor tbs
return " the goods aud, In default
thereof their value, ~ assessed At
$1,000. Plaintiff subsequently moved
the court 10 set aside aud yaoAte the
judgment on the ground that neither
Mcix nor the attorneys for plain.
TN aud Meta were employed or
authorized 10 commence suit or prose-
cute the same-ihat the plaintiff never
authorized the commencement of tho
action ami that the court hal no luris.
dlction 10 render judgment therein.
Their hOnors now inclined 10 the
belief, however, that Metz had author.
~ 10 begin the suit, that tue plaintiffs
afterwards ratified his acts by fuceiv.
lug the goods Into their stock at Og.
den, anu received the proceeds there.
or
The judgment Of the district court
was therefore Affirmed, with costs.
Nhilh Of ATTACHMENT.
Barton Btos., plaintiffs ami appel.
lanls, W tue South jordan cooperative
Mercantile and Manufacturing Insti.
tuition, defendants aud respondents.
Appeal from Third districl-Judgo
Merritt.
la Jauusry, 1894, u. g. NJ. /. began
proceedings IA tue lower court against
the defendant Institution, 10 recover
the sum VI 81 ,s93lO, and a writ VI at.
taohuunt was issued and served on the
same day by .eyy Ing upon n certain
stock Of mtfcnanuise IA de'enugups
possession. On January ilth n judg-
ment was entered In favor OF u. q. NJ.
/. Tor the full amount. Next Jay Bar
ton Bros. oOmmeuCBd an action
against tue same defendants 10 re-
cover 5000, Rnd had tue same mer.
chandiHu attached by the same officer.
The only question which this court II
now required 10 pass upon IL whether
Or not tue appellants have prior lien
upon funds In the hands VI the u. >.
matshAl.
Jones a Schroeder ior tho appellants;
Richards q Richards Tor the respond.
onts aud u. 3, marshal,
BACON AND onRYsTAL.
The case 0i w. l.. Bacon, plalntln
aud respondent, Va John IL. Me
Chfystai aud Noah MoChrystAl, do.
iendants aud appellants, came on,
appeal from the Third distriot-Judgo
bafich. IL WIS an action brought 10
recover from appellants the sum Of
sl,2OJ paid rs part VI the purchase
price under a pafol contract for tho
sale anu purchase Of land, with Interest,
o'c. Judgment was rendered against
John A. McChryHtai for 81 $40, SO, anu
from the order everything motion for
new trial this appeal 10 taken.