Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-21
Ole Opinion Delivered aud TAF5e
Cases Argued Today.
sur BROUGHT 10 QUIET TILE.



Neson ct al, appellants, ani was ron.
dercd by Judge smith, Judges Merritt
and Barlch concufring.
This was m action upon n ncgoiia.
bio promIssery note made by tho de.
Pendants to plaintiff anu was tried In
Judge Minet'e Fourth district.
The anewof Of defendants denied that
Flint was the owner Of tho note, nj.
legged thrt II was made without any
consideration aud tnAt plaintiff oh.
tainod possession Of u wrongfully; that
~ delivery was by mistake, ~ plaintiff
well know. Tho evidences ~ to what
occurred ut tbs time OF the delivery Of
tho note, said their honors, was
squarely conflicting. The jury found
for the plaintiff, and there was no
question made hero bat that the tcsti
mony supported the verdict when
several makers OF note placed the
pane In the possession Of one Of their
plumber anu he delivered Il to the paycc
he acted ~ tho authorized agent OF
all, and the payto took Il, if Ir value,
charged with no Otnof equity than
that brought 10 HE knowledge. In
other words, he could be In no wise
charged with what had trauepitcd be.
tween the makers Ia his ABSENCE, anu
VI which he had no notice. 10
admit any other rule would BE- 10 per.
NIT every surety upon ptomissory
nOle, or other writing, ~ escape
liability by proving self.sotving state.
monts made IA the absence OF the
oblgcc, aud u which he had no
knowledge. The court thought all
such statements were inadmissiblc,
and tho fact that they were made Just
at the time some one OF more " the
makers signed the note did not
render them competent 10 alter
or vary the plain import OF the
written obligation. Alter setting forth
reasons In detail why the Judgment
OF the lower court could ult DO TO.
yersed their Honofs affirmed the same,
with costs 10 the respondent.
BOLD FOR TAXES.
The fipt oase srgued was that OF
Jens Olsen, plaintiti aud Tesp1n dent,
represented by Attorneys j. II. MUyle
aud &. 4. Kinney, W. Hyrum BAglsy,
defendant anu appellant, for whom
Attorney Culchlow made the srgu.
menis.
Appeal from Third di,ttlot-Judss
Zane.
Olsen brought suit against Bagley 10
quiet title 10 forty acres Of lana situate
IN Salt Lake county, tho same being
valued ~ so, 900. Tue latter answered
setting up tile Ia himself, showtng
that the land In question had been
sold by the collector Of Salt Lake
county for taxes TO the probate fudge
for the benefit Of the county, that tbs
county sold It 10 jacob l.. Bamberger,
and that Bambergor then sold Il TO
Bagley for $1,000. Issue being thus
Joined atrial was had by reference to
Judge Anderson A. referee. His nnd-
Ing was In favor VI the plaintiff, which
was confirmed by the district court,
and against THIS an appeal Is taken.
a PRoSnssoRY NorE.
Jacob A. Dupes, appellant, VI
Frederick W. Rose, respondent.
Attorneys +. IS. Stephens and Ben.
neI y. Smith Tor the ilfmeT; Attorney |
Frank Pierce for tue latter. THIS was
an appeal from this Third district |
Judge Merritt.
ON April Lot, 1891, J. II. Blazer and |
wife gave 10 appellant their prnmissDIy |
note Of $500, payable April /, 1894, ana
secured tho same by trust deed Ia
favor OF frank Is. Stephens, trustee, on
n certain lot Of real estate In Salt Lake
city. Part Of tbs Indebted usss was
unpaid, and on April ~, 1894, appel
liant brought suit Ia chanUufy t. lore.
close the tTJst deed. The respondent
filed a general demurrer 10 the appel
lRnts bill and also especial demurrer
that DIpuo could not iOfeclosr the deed
In Chanoefy. The court hustaiaed tho
demurrer, appellant refused 60 amend
anu the bill wEE dismissed for want Of
equity. The present appeal II from the
Judgment OF dismissal. The only que.
lion presented In the record if-can
trust deed be ioreolosed Ia chancey2
OVER AZ ASSESSMENT.
The Mammoth Mining Co., PLAINTIFF
anu appellants, Va JuAb 90. and IA. h.
McCune, defendants and respondents.
Bennett, Marshall aud Bradley Tor the
appellants; Attorney q. Adams, Judg.
o q. w. Powers audi Il. ID. Hogo Tor
Tho respondents. Appeal from Fist
5miti--iTom an order
overriding appellants motion Tor
new trial.
Tho facts substantially are that some
time before tho making OF tho R,sest-
meat by tho assessor OF Juab county
That iunctionary delivered TO the MAN.
moth company an assessment blank or
statement 20 be filled up by them, ~
provided IN tho Revenue law OF 1890.
This the company neglected 10 DO
within the lime prescribed by law,
" hereupOn tho assessor proceeded 10
make an estimate Of the value Of the
property which consists Of
,ettAin mluiug claims In Mammoth
Hollow, Juab Go.
The case was tried before the court
without Jury In Nov, 1893, judgment
being In favor Of the defendants. Mo-
ion for a new lrisl was made sud over. !
uled, and upon this the appeal now
zones
BEFORE ANUTHER COMMITTEE.
CLERK Bachs's docket contained the
GLOWING entry lOlay; "FOr reasons
atisfac t0riiy appearing therefor 10 the
ourt, the application Of Tom Ferguson :
or admission 10 the bar OF this court I
! Withdrawn from the regular com. /