Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-01-22
The Cope Family Sull Struggling for
a Settlement.
An ACTION AGAINST me CITY.
Damage Done by Flock uf sheep In
Echo CauJou-Olher HuH.
ness.


HERE'S ANOTHER.
Frank j. KosriuI presented pcu.
Ton Tor admission 90 tho bar, and the
.amc was referred 20 the standing
committee 20 examine nnd report.
THE COPE CASE.
The fret Rppcnl argued was that Of
20. whittcmotu (lhe present county
altorucy) ana George u. C0pr, appel
lanls, VI Thomas n. Cope, Mary Ann
Jack and b. IS. Young, respondents.
MI. Whi,temore conducted the
csse in his own uohul'; Attorney b. T..
Armstrong appeared for George n.
Cope; Williams, Van Colt q 5u,hur.
land, anu Bennett, Marshall d Bradley
Tor the respondents.
Appeal from the Third distrlc,-
Chief Justice Merritt.
This H. matter that hos been iu
litigation ~ Our form ana another Tor
several years. II now comes up on the
uppellnntS petition Tor partition OF
lot 3, block 3, plat B, Salt Lake CITY
turvey.
u would appear that Thomas Cope
dlUd Interstate lu thu year 1868, having
occupied the above lot at The time Of
his dCcUusc. de also had the posses
sorry hight 10 lot q, block / o, plat "B."
anu one five acre lot; but these aTu not
now Ia question, There survived the
dtceIeut Janet Cope, his widow, the
respondent Ihus. II. Cupt-hu being
son by former deceased wiiU-uud the
appellant George IA. Cope, who was %
son BY q pUIygamuuB wife, Mar.
Hufut Perry. Janet AMI Thea II,
lived on lot o with the ducedent
Thomas, and hitor hiB death Janet
continued 10 live tnure until hBf death
IN 1891. Margaret and her son George
live ON the south hall o. lot g. block
o, aud the north half was used as "a
nursery. Lot nui the nye-Bcro lot
were uuncCupiUu, Thomas Jack was
appointed administrator Of tho estate
in 1872, for the primary purpose Of
obtaining title 90 these varluus lots Tor
the benefit Of the htim sud hence
applied 10 the probate court. Janet
Cope also made application Tor said lot
o, ana Margaret Tor the south half Of
lot 4, while Charles Caldwell applied
Tor tue north hall. Some one, on behalf
Of George Cope, applied iof lot ., the
other city lot
Lot ., the one In question 10 thif
case, and lot ., were adjudlcatei 20 the
administrator in trust Tor the heirs OF
Thomas Cone, the claim OF Janet and
The one made on behalf 0f George
being denied. Lot was adjudlCatud
TO Caldwell and Margaret, thu claim Of
tho administrator being denied and the
mayOr's deeds were Issued accordingly.
one John 4. C0nk obtained patent
from the United States for quarter
section VI land including three and
onu.half acres Of tbs fye.acfe lot
10 which Thomas Cope had q
possoss0ty right AT the time oil
his death, aud Richard Pickering
obtained a patent for the quarter
spction including the remainder Of this
ave acre lot Tho paIrntous rcc3g
uizod the right VI Thomas Cope, and
made cUnvOyauuta accordingly.
Administrator JACK ON June 10, 1851
fltd Ia the probate court a report anu
nCo0unt and included therein i0isoAuu
., and the flyo,aCro lot as property Of
the estate 20 be- distributed 10 the heirs
Janet Thomas II. sui George IA.
Cope, on September 10, 1850, iiltd their
petition Ter distribution but the mattel
was not acted upon by tue court until
February q, 1855, when tho account
was allowed On the same day George
iiled a second petition Tor liHttluuiiou
ana Probate Judge John a. MarHhalI
on January 20, 1859, made an order
setting the case Tor nearing March l.
1859.
Written objections were then fled
10y Janet And Thomas H., opposing d
distribution OF any Of tho estate OF Geo
II. Cope, aud denying bis right 10 in'
horit, on the ground OF hi being D
polygamOus child. On March l. 1853, o
decree was entered by tue pGoout,
Judge which found that Thomas jack
the udmlnistrator, held said lDtH unl
anu tue nve.aoru lot in trus. lot tn'
nulu; that the osiAln was the separate
property VI thB deceased, that George
was not eutlliui ~ ilhurlt, auu giving
the property 20 Janet and lhomas iI
equal shares. On the following
u6y tho administrator and tru
toe executed deed 20 Jane
and ThOmas H., purporting q
convey lols 9 aud o amt iht
tve.aore lot pursuant TO tue decree
On ApIli 20, 1859, Janet anu Ihoma
IN. COpe aud wife oluyovoi lul nm.
tho iiyc.RoIe lot 10 AyTtB and hrsslef
George Cope appealed from tuu de-
cree TO the district court, where u vi"
sustained, then 10 tho supreme tIuf
u tue Territory, Whole 10 was AEall
sustained, ami finally 10 The SupIem'
Court Of the United States, where lh
Judgment Of the district court wa
reversed. George Cope was ueid 10 b
an heir, aud on Juue 10, 1871 lh'
district court on "A remittiluf entered
decree accordingly, distributing lot
and the dve.nCTs lot 10 Thomas II. AM
George Core, IN equal shares ia &
Gone, the widow, having died mean
while.
Iuu appellant Whluomoro receive
conveyance from George IL. cope 10
bu undivided hail u his Une-hali inter
est iu said lots, and DringB suit 10 90
tin partition Of said property, I'm
appellant George H.. Cope, in MS al
sw1r, admits the conveyance ~ VIM
temOre and asks Tor "a partition also
The respondent, Thomas H. Cope
Notwithstanding the decree o.
distribution made By the dia,r'a
court, and that he and Janet ~
posed such distributiOn and maintains
O. long contest In the cuuflsi olalm'n
H.l tho bonolts OF the decree made b.
Judge Mamhall; no long as the sAh'
remained unreyersed, anu OF tue zee
from the Naturalization to them, NOV
tgts up title by adverse possession u
the widow Janet, under whom u
claims as teyisee ami tllle uuuef