Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-01-24
THE SUPREME COURT.
An Appeal Arising Out Of a Park City
Firms Failure.
CONCERNING A RAILROAD TRACK.



within the precincts OF the Territorial
Supreme Cour. Clerk Bauhe, upon
the opening Of the morning. session,
went through the customary iIrmalily
threading the minutes II the preceI.
ing day'ssesaion nud these were duly
signed. Then the first case on the liz,
was called Up, aud the moa,ufe g. + Pub.
Tic interest may be gagged by the TACT
that during a large portion II The legal
arguments there were present In court,
besides the clerk, exactly three
attorneys, two sleepy looking specta.
tors, two newspaper reporters and one
baihh.
An ATTACHMENT MATTER.
Remington, johnson & Co., plsin.
tlis and appellants, We John l.. Weber,
sheriff Ct summit county. Hymm
Newell aud l.. Simon, surours on his
official bond, d,fsndants and respond
ents. Appeal fom the Third district
-Chitf Justice Merritt
Attorney James a. Williams fIt tho
APPELLANT; Attorney w. 1. Suydur Dr
the respondents.
A Park CITY nrm az merchants,
Young s. Addufly, went under IN tue
month ti November, 1891. Several
attachment suits were ileI la jusliCus'
courts nj tho Park, fJllowci by the
issuance a attachments f.oLi the
Third diatrict court Sheul Weber
took charge { all the goods f the de-
fInct flfm Ia the Park CITY suits aud
levied said attachments IN the order
Ia which they were placed In his
hands, subject 70 the prior attach.
mouts, He sold out all the attached
property, Faiiailed Nil Judgments prior
10 those + appellants and paid p0r.
iiHn a tuUitr, leaving a balance VI
$500. ApprllauiH' attachment was
levied on Nov. lblh, 1891. Monroe T..
Smith g. Go. sued Out an attachment
ia tho rhird district court, nud thla
latter Shcun Weber executed ON NUv.
l7,h, by attaching all the property
previously attached. Ia al Iiti1g hu
gnruished some iwrniy.hvH parsons
then indebted 10 lUugy s. AddtTly,
ami urwardo collected { Hm the gar.
nishuts the Sum u' iiil.2. This no
applied 90 tbs SAITH faction 81 the ludg.
munt Ia tho Smith case.
Appellants sued tho sheriff I'm dam.
ages anI for mOLey had ami received,
COutenuing that such money should
have been applied upon their CNecu.
Son, M their attachment WIS prior la
point Of time.
On the part Of the respondents II l.
submitted that the sheuil had the
Remington writ la his hauIs before he
received tue Smith writ, and that tue
only point VI urfiOus controversy hero.
In was 40 10 whether, under the facts,
the former writ should be con-
sidered ~ levied upon the property VI
Young & Addefly prior TO the latter.
Counsel C1ntonueI that the Ttqutst VI
RemiugtOn's attorney 10 levy upon the
book accounts was not such y cUmpli-
nuce with the statute ~ 10 require the
officer to make ary levy.
Tho case was heart btfIre Attorney
II. III. CaDoll as referee, who Duuu,
substantially, that plaintiffs were outi.
tied TO a judgment against the dtt5ud-
ants In the sum OF slg6 %, with
Interest ffum July 18Th, 1892, aud costs
Of suit; tnat neither plaintiffs nor their
attOrneya informed Weber Ia writing
10 garuish any u the persona mem
toned IN his return 60 the writ a
attachment IN the smith case,and that
plaintiffs were not entitled 10 any part
Of the si5i22 paid by tue garnlshtos.
Motion was made by appelauts'
counsel 10 sot aside tue report and
findings Oitho referee and grant = new
trial, but this was 0veTruiud. Here.
upon au appeal IL takeh.
II COMES IrERE AGAIN.
Martha Anu Coomba, appellant, vs..
the Salt Lake aud Fort Douglas Rail.
way company, and tho Utah Central
Railway company, James MoGregoT
ami Clarence Carey, receivers.
Attorney J g. A, William tlr the
appellant Attorneys LrGtaud iounp
aud Il. l.. Williams TOR the rerpon'
dents.
Npueal from Third district court
Chiif Justice Merritt.
THIS case has been once previously
btfite the Territorial supreme court
aud It's history may BIO thus briefly
summarized;
In 1857 the Salt Lake Il Fort Doug.
las Railway Co. built III road across y
Eud A streets 10 "a connection with
the Fort Douglas reservation NO
objection was made 10y the appellant
TO the construction a the track until
some tour years ttef its completion,
when this suit WAS begun. The cass
was tried b fire Judge Barich In tn,
winter { { 1888, aud resulted In a ludg
meni for tho Il, fsndanlH on the main
issue, VIA, tho Injunction, aud l'i
plaintiff fr damages In the sum &
$4,000, with Interest. From the Juug'
ment denying tho Injunction plhintih
appealed 10 the supreme COURT when
reversed the doClHlOn n mo COufl
below aud remAnded the case bncki
40 respondent claimed new Trial
Afterwards PLAINTIFF counsel hlol
motion In tho district court asking thh'
judgment be entered therein IN accord
Rnce with the original prayer l0i EelleIi
but this was subsequently wiihdTaWn.
Upon tho appointment f he present
Chief Justice, however tho mouou
was renewed and denied on the near
Ing, the judge basing his Ieiusal y,
grant the motion and eater luuB heul
for the injunction on the ground thHl
the supreme court had made no sutl
order; that under the rules a court
where cases came down with no ihll
nation II anything more than rover
ial, the rule was TO grant a new ttlsl'
From this order Cf Judge Merritt an
appeal on alleged error Ia taken
DISPUTE OVER CONTRACTS.
Short and Randall, plaintiffs anI
appellants, Va Pierce Hnd Christopher
EOD DE- fsuunutH and TegpundeniAs