Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-06
THE SUPREME COURT.
One Opinion Handed Dawn-Cns's Ar
gued aud Subm.lltd.

At tsdayis session Of the Supreme
Court one opinion was banded down,
and two case, were argued and f1n
mitted.
Al oplui1n wa nsnird down
In the case o. EIiih -. Hiiohie, plai1.
ufiand respondent, v. Joseph Clnfh,
defendant and appellant.
In this case WIN. s.owsil sold q tract
OF land 10 w. 10. swan, taking boo per,
payment therefor note, secured hy
a mortgage on the lanl. 5.oTuii aa.
signsI the note and mortgage 20 o.-
fondasL A few Jays prior t. this
swan conveyed tslF lHa {. tiaIn'ii'
the Iat or believing them ifeH u' 40 J 10
rumbrancs.. pIanNl afterwards de-.
nfoI 10 moftafe tho lUta, when DO WAs
Loaned tnat tue lots woto embrace
In tHo mJugagn ihon hslA
b. duloldnui, oven by Swan 10 ai1.
well. Plaintiff went 10 defendant and
paid him S4OJ - release tho lots ftom
theeupp0spd lnCumbfanUe. DDi1n iaut
gave swan cteuit Tor the amount on
the note. Defendant afterwards OBJ
HANuNA n ANNNNN N| A.AN.'hNHhAN " AAAN
swan mortgage, plaintiu not holus
made n patty thereto, ulthough GlAtEi
who has, when no brought his suit,
discovered the OMISSION OF the lot1
from the mortgage, asked tor cjTrcc'
ton u tho mortgage ~ ~ 20 incluie
them. In the suit upOu tho note Il
mortgage the Judgment usai1ui swan
It'd not include the 500, the court
treating u W. u payment on tho O..
Plainuii Afterwards loafUri ut the
mistake aud demanded that tho Io.
lrndaut ttlru thr $500. hc refused
aud hn'aclion was COminurc,d 90 iu-
cover saii amount, the compliant
alleging payment by mistake.
TIE thai judge held "tnat defendant
was more negligent tuan pIsirtIn"
anu Instructed ihu Jury TO nui Tor tho
latter.
rhe Supreme Court h0ldg that the
"m.stake IN attributable - plsintiu
fathor than defendant" ami TIA! thu
lower court erfoI Ia directing o. verdict
Tor plaintiff. Tue Judgment Of tho
lower court Il therefore reversed and a
new trial granted. The opinion wa
delivered by Justicc King, Justices
Morrilt and smith clncufiing.
SUR FOR REST.
The frat csso argued before the
supreme court today was that VI
the Brigham Young Trust company,
plaiutii aud respondent, W Henry
Wagner, dufendsnt and appellant.
the Arguments were mEIs by J. a.
Williams fot appellant AMI II. w.
Young ami Barlow Ferguson Tor
respondent.
la this case tue plaintiff entered
suit before Judge Merritt Ia tbs rhird
district court, tor sIsD for rent, aud thU
Jury found Tor the full amount a
motion Tor n new trial was Oyerruled
Aud an appeal was tukcn.
The case Of Wallace, Smuin * Co.,
plaintiffs anu respondents, " 4. j.
Mclaughlin and .. &. LoukhaT,, de.
PENDANTS aud appellants, and 5ymms
Grocery Co., plaintiff aud respondent,
We +. J. Mclaughlin ani o. q. L01A.
hsrt, defendants anu appellants, Brown
aud iigniefson arc attorneys TOT 81.
pullanis, Jun1a AMI schroeder Tor
respondents.
These two causes ate hoari together.
The appeal Ia each case IL from IA order
made December =, 1894, on proceedings
supplemental 10 execution, anu the
appeal In each case Is by the two
principal defendants and H.. &. VIII
liamson aud ID. q. Mclaughlin. D..
PENDANTS owed the Park CiIy bank
$4,000. Symms Grocery 60. $1,000,
and Wallace, Smuin x Go. $1,000.
They had stock Of goOus worth about
$4,000, and about $4,000 was due
them. Defendants failed 10 pay tho
Amounis due tho plaintiff aud suit was
entered Ia tho Third district court ior
the sums due them. Defendants Oh.
leUlod 10 the orders made by tue court
and appealed to the Buptomo court.