The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-09-20
ANSWERS Filled.
In the Suit of Mccormick s. Co. VS.
Wells, Fargo, ct nj.


In the Suit of Mccormick s. Co. VS..
Wells, Fargo, ct al.
Separate answers were yesterday
filed in the Third district by the de-
PENDANTS, Mary E. Gilmer and Wells,
Fargo & Co., in the suit of w. S. Nc
Cornick & Co, VS.. Mary E. Gilmer,
Wells, Fargo & Co., Catherine C. Bel
cher and Lloyd Tevis in which the
plaintiff sues to recover $23,S56 and in
terest.
In Mary E. Gilrner's answer all the
mutual allegations of the complaint
are denied and for an affirmative de-
Tense it is alleged that John T. Gilmer,
prior to his death, was indebted to
Wells, Fargo & Co. in the sum of $780,
900, and that to secure the same he
conveyed to John E. Dooly the real
estate mentioned in the complaint and
also conveyed to Dolly to further Sc
cure the said Indebtedness certain min
ing property, consisting of stock in the
Rams Horn mine, Deadwood, Terra
Mining company, Highland Mining
company, Bertrand Mining company
and the Stewart Mining company; that
the deed to said property was an abso-
lutte conveyance to Dooly, but the pro-
perty was really to secure the indebted
ness of Gilnler to Wells, Fargo & Co.'S.
bank Of which Dolly was cashier. 1t
is also claimed that certain promissory
notes made by Monroe Salisbury to
Wells, Fargo & Co. secured by a. mort
gage on property in Illinois should have
been satisfied by the sale of the Hi
noiS property and not by the property
of John 7. Gkrner conveyed to Dolly.
On August 26, 1895, Wells, Fargo &c
70
Dooly and this defendant bought it for
$4,000 and is now the owner of the
same and reconveyed it to Wells, Fargo
& Co. to secure an indebtedness of hers
to that firm of $148,000 and a large por-
ton of said Indebtedness, it is alleged,
was incurred by her on account of the
contingent liability of John T. Gflmer
on account of the indebtedness of Nom
roe Salisbury to Wells, Fargo & Co.
The defendant then alleges that the
said Indebtedness will prove to be an
absolute liability, and that she will
have to pay the whole thereof subject
only to any abatement that may be
realized by the defendant, Wells, Fargo
& Co., out of the proceeds of the sale
of the Illinois property moTtgaged by
Monroe Salisbury to Wells, Fargo &
Co., and that after the payment of all
prior liens and Indebtedness out of the
proceeds of the mortgaged property, no
sum will remain applicable toward the
payment or reduction of the debt evil
denced by the promissory notes.
Wells, Fargo e. Co.'S answer is in
substance the same as that of Mary E.
Gilmer, alleging, however, that Mary
e. Gilmer owes them S54 40, and that
their entire security for the same rests
upon the mining shares and read estate
and the ultimate individual liability in
Cured by Mary E. Gilmer by virtue of
the notes by her executed to Wells,
Fargo & Co.; and that if said sales of
real estate and said stock should blythe
court be declared null and void, and
that no title thereto passed to Mary
E. Gilmer, then this defendant sets up
and claims it's equitable lien on the pro-
perty by reason of the mortgage and
pledge given by John T. Gilmer in
favor of this defendant.
Wherefore this defendant, Wells,
Fargo & Co, prays to be hence dis
missed with costs.