The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-07-28


ceased, a purchaser Of property at an
Execution sale of personal property up
on an execution issued out Of the First
judicial district court of Utah, to revive
the judgment in her favor under the
provisions of law contained in section
591 of the code of court procedure.
The facts in the case appeared to be
that on August Is, 1885, the furniture
lof the Broom hotel in ogden was levied
upon to satisfy a judgment for S3,OSO
against the defendant, NJ. H. Beardsiey;
that al the time of said levy and sale
There was a mortgage on the property,
made by Beardsley to one James G.
Armstrong to secure the payment of
certain pronissory note for the sum of
IS 600 and that the said property was
improperly sold; that thereafter the
said James c. Armstrong took possess
sion OF said property. purchased by
John Broom and ousted Broom from
possession thereof and sold the same
under said mortgage, which proceeding
was afterwards confirmed by the
courts, the Broom interest being trans
ferred to the Utah National bank, of
Ogden, they appeared as plaintiffs and
asked for a revival of the judgment in
their favor.
The lower court was affirmed, Bartch
delivered the opinion and Merritt con-
Cured.
A. f. Lawson and John L. Lawson vs.
Alfred Thompson, appellant, from the
Third district court Judge Bartch pre-
siding.
The suit was brought to recover $500
and interest for Commission alleged to
be due for the sale of certain real es-
tate. The plaintiff alleged that defend
ant agreed to pay them a commission of
per cents of the purchase price for the
sale of thirty acres of land in Salt Lake
lcounty for the sum of $4,000. They al
legged that on September 20, 1889, they
procured John A Groesbeck, who was
fthen ready. willing and able to purchase
said premises and that plaintiffs per-
formed all Of the terms and conditions
of the contract existing between plain
ltiffS and defendant wherefore plaintiffs
demanded judgment for $500 and the
Jury in the court below rendered YER
dict for that amount with interest from
October T. 1889, at the rate of s per cent.
per annum.
The defendant denied every allegation
of the plaintiffs and averred that he
never employed them TO sell any real
estate and that they never had procured
a purchaser or made a sale for him.
The lower court was affirmed. Miner
delivered the opinion in which Merritt
and Smith concurred.
STAIN vs.. HALL.
Emil A Stain VS.. c. D. Hall ct al,
appellants.
This action was brought in the low
er court by the respondent to reform a
certain warranty deed, made by him
and his wife May 1880, to one H. 3.
Westover. So far as the same pur-
ports TO convey a tract of thirty-three
and one-half acres of land in Weber
county and to have said deed as to
tract of land declared void. The con-
sideration was $4,000. This relief is
sought by Hall and Kelly, on the
ground that the land was included in
the deed by mutual mistake of re-
spondent and themselves, and as to lie
and Mcmillan. on the ground that they
purchased with notice of the mistake.
The answer denies that a mistake was
made and denies all the material al
legations of the complaint.
The appeal is taken from both the
judgment and order denying the mo-
ton of appellants for a new trial. APP
pellants specified eight particulars in
which the referee erred in matters of
law at the trial and ten particulars in
which the evidence was insufficient to
justify the findings of the referee.
The lower court was affirmed, Bartch
delivered the opinion, Merritt and
Smith concurring.
PARK VS.. PARSONS.
Boyd Park, appellant, VS.. E. H. Par
sons ct al. appeal from motion to
reinstate appeal.
The suit was brought in the Third
district court, plaintiff alleging that
on or about October 81, 1891, the de-
PENDANTS unlawfully took from the
possession of the plaintiff and against
his viii carried away certain assayer's
materials, the property of the plain
tiff of the value of 81, 100, and still I'M
lawfully retains the same to the dam
age of the plaintiff in the sum of 81 POO
and demanded judgment for the sum of
81 200 and costs.
The defendant denied having taken
the whole or part of the property men
toned in the complaint, and denied
that the same was the property of the
plaintiff. The allegation was that the
defendant in the suit had sliced and
sold to satisfy a judgment certain
goods on which Boyd Park, the plain
tiff. held mortgage.
The jury in the lower court returned
a verict in favor CT the plaintiff for
$SSS 81 and S49.45 costs, and judgment
was entered accordingly, hence the
appeal.
The court below was affirmed. Smith
delivered the opinion, Miner and
Bartch concurred.
BURROWS VS.. KIMBALL.
W. S. Burrows VS.. o. G. Kimball,
appellant.
The action arose out Of a controversy
over section 16 adjoining the town of
Scofield which section is. by the reser-
walton. contained in section 1916 of the
revised STATUTES of the United States,
d school section.
The facts as stated are that the land
had been in dispute between various
parties In 1890 the territorial legisla-
ture passed the act in regard to the
leasing Of school lands which is found
in the laws of $780, page 95. Both plain
tiffs and defendants made application
for different portions Of the school sec
ton to the county court and the coun-
ty court, without notice to the defend
ants, granted a lease of the whole sec
ton to the plaintiffs, whereupon the
plaintiffs brought the action against
the defendants fer trespass
The defendants urged two grounds
why the judgment rendered in favor of
the plaintiffs cannot stand. First the
ease made to the plaintiffs by the coun-
ty court of Emery county was invalid
because the law as to the leasing of
lschool lands was not followed. Second
the territorial Legislature had no right
Ito pass the law giving authority to
lease the school lands to the county.
The judgment Of the lower court was
reversed. Miner read the opinion in
(which Merritt and Bartch concurred.
a MINING CASE
Joseph Rufratte vs.. The Sociede Ano-
thyme des Mines de Lexington appel
lant.
The case comes up ON appeal from the
Third district court, Judge Bartch pre-
lsiding The plaintiff claimed that the
defendants are owners of the Old Tele-
Igraph mine at Bingham and that he