The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-23

The first case argued yesterday in
The supreme court was that of c. O.
Whittemore and George H. Cope, ap-
pellants, vs. Thomas H. Cope, Mary
Ann Jack and B. S. Young, respond
ents.
Attorneys 5. P. Armstrong and C. o.
Whittemore made the arguments for
the appellants, and Attorneys Van Colt
and John Marshall for the respond
ents, after which it was taken under
advisement.
~ The case came up ON the appellants
petition for a partition of lot 5, block 8,
plat B, Salt Lake city survey.
1t would appear that Thomas Cope
died interstate in the year 1854, having
occupied the above lot at the time of
his decease. He also had the posses
sorry right to lot, ?, block IA, plat B,
and one five acre lot; but these are not
now in question. There survived the de-
cedent Janet Cope, his widow, the
respondent, Thomas H. Cope-he being
son by former deceased wife-and
the appellant, George H. Cope, who was
= u SOAl ny a ppl9 SdIIiOU5 VIE, margaret
Perry Janet and Thomas H. lived on
DOT with the decedent Thomas, and
after his death Janet continued to live
there until her death, in 1891 Margaret
and her son George lived On the south
half Of lot 4, block 5, and the north
half was used as q nursery. Lot 2 and
the fiVe-acre lot were unoccupied.
Thomas Jack was appointed admins
erator Of the estate in 1872, for the pri-
Elary purpose Of obtaining title to these
various lots for the benefit of tthe heirs
and hence applied to the probate
court. Janet Cope also made appHca-
zion for said lot 5, and Margaret FOX
the south half Of lot 4. while Charles
Caldwell applied FOR the north half
Some one, on behalf of George Cope,
applied for lot ?. the other city lot.
Lot 5, the one in question in this
ecase, and lot 2 were adjudicaled tc
the administrator in trust for the heir:
/ of Thomas Cope, the claim of Janet and
! tlle one made on behalf of George be-
ing denied. Lot was adjudicated to
Caldwell and Margaret. the claim OF
the administrator being denied ana the
mayors deeds were issued ACCORDINGLY
One John T. Conk obtained a ratent
from the United States for a quarter
sec,ton Of land, including uhree and One-
half acres of the f1ve-acre lot to which
Thomas Cope had a possessory r;ght
at the time of his death. and nichard
Pickering obtained a patent for the
quarter section, including the remain
der of this five-acre lot. The ratentees
recognized the right of Thomas Gone
and made conyeyances accordingly
Administrator Jack, on June 19, 1885
HE'D in the probate court a report and
account and included therein lots 5 and
,. and the fve-acre lot as property of
the estate to be distributed to the heirs
Janet, Thomas H. and George H. Cope
on September 16. 1885. filed their petit
ton for distribution, but the matter
was not acted upon by the court until
February 4, 1888. when the account was
allowed. On the same day George filed
q second petition for distribution and
Probate Judge John A. Marshall on
January Is, 1889, made an order setting
the case for hearing March 1, 1889.
Written objections were then filed by
Janet and Thomas H.. opposing q dis.
tribution Of any Of the estate of George
u. Cope and denying his right to in.
her1t, on the ground of his being 3
4, s)OlygamouS child. On March l, 1889 :
) decree was entered by the probate
Judge, which found that Thomas lack
The administrator, held said lots 2 and
and the fiye-acre lot in trust for the
,helrs; that the estate was the senarate
FproQSrty Of the deceased; that George
I. vas not entitled to inherit, and giving
the property TO Janet and Thomas ir
equal shares. On the following day the
administrator and trustee executed =
deed TO Janet and Thomas H, purp9rt.
ing to convey lots and and the five.
acre lot pursuant to the decree. Or
April %, 1889, Janet and Thomas n
Cope and VIE conveyed lot . and +he
nVe-acre lot 70 Ayres and Kessler.
George Cope appealed from The de.
cree OF the district court, where il was
sustained, then to the supreme court ~
the territory, where it was again s,;s.
:, tanned, and finally to the S1Inrer7f
Court OF the United States, where tF,e
judgment Of the district court was ra.
versed. George Cope was held 10 -.
an heir, and on June Is, 1891, the dis.
trict court on a remittitur entered q
decree accordingly, distributing LOT }
and the fVe-acre lot TO Thomas II. anC
George Cope in equal shares. Janet
Cone, the widow having died mean.
while.
The appellant Whittemore received 2
conveyance from George H. Cone fo,
an individual half of his oneIhalf IN.
oerest IN said lots, and brings suit ia
obO2ln paHtttfon Of said property. The
appellant George II. Cope, in his an.
temore and asks for a partition also
a'he respondent, Thomas H Cope. not.
withstanding the decree of distribu,
ton made by the district court, and
that ne and janet opposed such dis.
tribution and maintained a long con.
test IN fl'e courts. claiming all the ben.
ef1ts of the decree made by Judge
Marshall, SO long as the same remained
unreYersed, and Of the deed from The
admins traitor to them, now sets III
q title by adverse possession in tht
widow Janet, under whom he claims
as devisee and a title under q uaro
partition which he AYERS was made in
1857 and afterwards ratified by tht
parties IN interest.
The appellants have stipulated thai
the decree Of the district court as tc
the fve-acre lot may be affirmed. Lot
2 has been conveyed to third parties
by both Thomas and George Cope. T'hi:
leaves the question of title Of lot
only TO be determined on this appeal
An Appeal BY the City.
The appeal case OF Edward P. SEQ
vile -eSnondauf We Salr Lake city