The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-10-27

The foreclosure suit of the American
Loan and Trust company VS.. the Ore
gon Short Line and Utah Northern
Railway company came on before Chief
Justice Merritt on a motion for judg-
ment and foreclosure on the pleadings
which was argued and submitted and
the defendant allowed ten days in
which to hand in brief of authorities.
Attorney John Marshall appeared for
the plaintiff, and Attorneys LIE Grand
Young and P. L. Williams for the de-
Tense. The main grounds on which
Judgment was asked were that the
answer did not deny any of the al
legations set up in the complaint.
He said the complaint was verified,
but the answer was not verified, and
under the Utah statute the plaintiff
was entitled to the decree asked. Be
yond that, Mr.. Marshall said the I'M
verified answer was not a denial of the
PLAINTIFFS allegations. Judge Marshall
then reviewed the contents of the COM
plant and answer, and argued thereon
in support of his motion, claiming he
was legally entitled, beyond question,
to the foreclosure decree asked for.
Similar DEGREES had been granted in
Oregon, Wyoming and Idaho. Mr..
Marshall quoted from remarks of Sena7
tor Thurston, counsel for the Union Pa
cific, in which he said he knew of
nothing in the way of granting the
foreclosure asked and to which he
imagined they We're entitled. The only
denial of the defendant was that on
April l, 1894. coupons on the CONSOLE
dated bonds were presented and pay
ment refused. Mr.. Marshall called at
tention to the fact that the denial was
limited to the one day named, and did
not deny that presentation and refusal
took place on a subsequent date. The
plaintiff asked to foreclose his equity of
redemption from first mortgage as
plaintiffs was a second mortgage.
Mr.. r. S. Hall replied for the Oregon
Short Line. and expressed surprise that
the question OF verification of the
answer should be raised at the present
time. He thought a corporation never
answered under oath. He said the de-
cree Of foreclosure in Wyoming was not
worth the powder to blow it up with it
was not contested. The decree in Ore
gon had been under a different answer
to that in the case here. Mr. Hall said
he saw no use in quoting Judge Thurs
toms remarks here. Mr.. Hall urged
that the answer did make specific de-
malls Of the allegations stated in the
complaint, and read in support of his
assertion in this respect He insisted
that the date Of the presentation of
coupons was a matter of allegation in
the complaint. and was a subject Of
specific denial He traversed the
grounds at considerable length. and in
sisted that the plaintiff had no legal
claim to a foreclosure at the present
stage Of the case.
Mr.. P. L. Williams made a brief ar
gument, taking the position that the
complaint and answer were in usual
form. and that the failure to verify
the answer was not a material ele-
ment in the discussion here. He also
argued that the motion made by plain
tiff was not allowable at this time.
Judge Marshall reasserted his claim
that the territorial and not the fede-
raj practice prevailed in this case, and
he thought the suggestion to the con-
trary was original, at least, with Mr..
Hall. The practice, he thought was
wholly different from the question of
jurisdiction. He also read the letters
of Judge Sanborn Of Wyoming to Judge
Reiner, who, it was ascertained, grant
ed the decree Of foreclosure. Mr. Mar
shall pointed out that the denial of
presentation of the coupons on April
!. 1894, was bubble. the fact being
that that date was Sunday and the
coupons were presented and payment
refused on April 2. The answer of the !
defendant, he claimed, was a sham, and !
was triffitng with the court.