Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-20
The Driver Mercantile Company
Middle Up Once Again.
AN OLD MINING CONTROVERSY.
II Is Case OF Alleged Breach OF
Contraot.-An Action Against
Ogden CITY,


the list No opinions were handed
down this morning.
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT.
Joseph Cobleniz ct Al, appellants, W
the Driver Mercantile Co., Of Balt
Lake city, and w. n. Remington,
assignee, respondents.
Sutherland n Howat; +. u. slcph.
ems; Booth, Lee and Gray, and W. 4.
Gunter were attorneys for the appel
lants. Counsel for the respondents
were s. II. Lewis, w. II. Dickson aud
II. s. MoCallum.
This was an appeal from the iudg-
ment OF tho Third district court
Judge Iant-in an action 10 SGT aside
aa fraudulent and void the assign
ment for the benefit Of creditors made
by tho Driver Mercantile 90. On
March q, 1898, this company executed
a deed Ut assignment 10 bennington,
making him n preferred creditor for
$3.50 and interest Appellants were
creditors Of the company, ana boliey-
Ing tho assiR lment 10 be fraudulent In
fact anu void as against them di,ft-
garded the SAME, brought attachment
suits anu attached tho property IA the
Rssignee's hands. Subsequently an nc.
ton In equity was brought by appel.
lants, In which II was asked that te-
ooiver DO appointed, tile assignment
set aside, anu the moneys realized by
the receiver from the sale VI the ~.
taohed property be distributed among
all attaching creditors. The alloga-
tions Of fraud by these creditors
were that the preferences In tho
assignment were the individual In.
dobtedntss Of Err. Clute, the manager,
aud not OF the company At all. Upon
the trial the lower court found that this
g., 225 set forth ~ the dobt due by this
Driver company 10 Remington was not
valid claim against this former, but
that this fraudulent intent on the part
Of the company and the officers there
Of Was not known to OF participated In
by Remington OF any VI tho creditors.
As conclusion Of law the trial judge
found that tue assignment inade by the
company 10 Remington for the benefit
VI the creditors wne bona . lie aud
NAllAH hAh AAlAh ~ AAhAAA ~ ANHhAAhhT
toms preferred claim, hv take nothing
thereon; that the preferred claim Of
Clute waH also illegal, ami he take moth
ing. Arthur II. Parsons was appointed
receiver, ana Remington, TO whom all
tbs property was ordered turned lover
by tue receiver, was allowed ILLS cost ~
assignee.
The contention o. tho appellants IL
that the deed Of assignment having
been made with fraudulent intent on
the part OF the corporation anu its ofii-
GERS was, under the Utah statute,
totally void, and that the creditors
whom II was sought 10 doffaud had
the right 10 disregard such assignment
absolutely and attach.
AN OLD oMEvANoE.
The next case argued was that OF
Joseph RutAti, plaintiff anu respond.
snt, We tho 5ooirie An0nymo des Minol
dc Lexington, defendant aud appel.
liant.
Marshall x Royls for the appellant
Richard Is. shepard aud n, U. Shep.
ard, Judge Cherry anu Judge Bow.
man for the respondents.
Appeal from the Third district
Judge BaTtoh.
The action was originally brought by
Runai against the Old Telegraph Min
ing Co. aud q. Layiguino. After
wards, by leave " court, the complain
was amended by Diminishing As 10 tn,
Old Telegraph and mAEing tho prssen al
| defendant company defendants Instead
on October 4lh, 1898, TRIAL was had
before jury, who found for tho plain
III In the sum OF $1,000 aud costs, bu
without any interest. A motion for
| new trial was OveiTulod, and an nppea
taken iof the purpose OF reversing thl
Judgment on several alleged errors.
The circumstances Ia this case hav,
! been previously glyon In these columns
| The'itigatlon arises out OF the least ni
OF certain portion Of the Old Telegraph
mine which IL located Ia bingham
canyon, 10 the plaintiff, for the pufpoa
OF developing the same and taking GU
ore for a period OF three months unue
conditions set forth In the contract.
IA alleged, however, that At tbs end o
nfty.sighi days the defendants unlav
fully compelled plaintiff to quit work
ING and mining ore anu Ousted hin
nom the premises. The total amour
claimed a. damages was Sl6,90s.GU
interest aud costs.
ACTION AGAINST OGDEN CITY.
Y. o. Groome, plaintiff aud ape
liant, VI Ogden CITY, Defendant an
BTseden aud Guunell attorneys 10
the iormef; Il. Ii. Whipple Attorne
for the latleE
Appeal from Fourth distrlet-Judg
In July, 1899, the plaintiff was opel
atinR a lanuury In Ogden, In col
ALTERATION, however, VI the granting /
MIN by lease OF a certain tract {
land elsewhere by the cit
council, no agreed to removr
the tannery thereto and re-estabiished
at cost, A. no says, VI $500. At Tia
time the Lessee was executed there WEI
syringe Of water ON tho leased land
and upon this water plaintif relied 1
the only supply Tor running his bua
mesa It's Ryrfr5d that the city al
not own and had no control over IN
water, OF which fact plalntiif had n
knowislge until after the removal
the tannery, aud that he has bee
since deprived Of Il by parties who hay
made y successful cain. Plaibti
states ho eauuOl therefore operate IA
| ....... .. - ..t.l.t.N Uamnuna iu The aus