Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-12-04
THE SUIT IS DISMISSED.
ACTION AND PLEADING INAPPROPRIATE
Hcnncrer Children Court Holds are Enti-
tied to Remedy Trouble over insur-
ance Moncy-Court Cuiiings.

Judge Hiles gave his decision today
in the case of a. II. Hennefer VS.
Jennie e. Hays. ct al. dismissing the
complaint of plaintiff and the cross
complaint of defendant Jennie Hays
and rendering judgment for DEFEND
ant for costs.
There were four suits in all brought
10 quiet title to lot in the south
eastern part of the city, each plaintin
claiming ownership of part or the
property 1t was agreed by the Mt
torneys that the evidence given in TINS
case should apply to the other cases
and were thus submitted TO the court.
The record of the case shows that
I'm 1876 Abraham Hays was the owner
of the lot in question. He had four
grandchildren, a. II. Henneier, Ed
ward Hennefer, william Hennefer and
Rebecca Hennefer, now Bunce. with
whom he made an agreement that II
they would provide him and his wife
with the necessaries of life so long as
they lived, that interest In and title To
the property should revert to each OF
them. In December OF the same year
the old gentleman died and the grand
children took care of his wife until 1887,
when she too passed away. The -FOUR
grandchildren had made number oil
improvements on the premises, Wy
erecting three substantial dwelling
houses. After the death OF Mrs HAYS.
A. IL. Hennefer petitioned the propate
court to enterf u decree OF distribution
to the four grandchildren and to have
the oral contract OF 1876, confirmed. IL
was here that Jennie Il. Hays, another
granddaughter of Abraham Hays, re-
siding in New York, appeared and con-
tested the authority and jurisdiction
of the probate court. The case was
heard in November 1890 and the de-
cree of the court declared the contract
of 1876 valid, and further decreed an
equal distribution of the land among
the four grandchildren. Jennie y.
Hays appealed from this Judgment TO
the district court, where 1t was held
that the probate court had no juris-
diction in the case and awarded Jen-
ME Il. Hays one-half of the lot ana
the other half to the four grandchll-
dren.
The evidence adduced at the present
hearing showed that the Hennefer
grandchildren had occupied the land
since 1876, and had paid the taxes from
that time to the present.
The court finds that the decision Of
the Supreme Court on these same
cases in 1896. precludes the possibility
of giving relief ON the pleadings OF
plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that
''it Is error to grant a decree of quiet
ing title on proof of facts showing Il
right to a specific performance sim
ply, and again that unless the
findings embrace all the facts essen
tlal to the cause of action set up in
the complaint a decree based thereon
is erroneous" Judge Hiles holds that
the nature of the case denies an
amendment of the pleadlngs. but adds
that proper pleading would secure, to
the Hennefer grandchildren, n full
and equitable remedy.
The court then orders dismissal
of plaintiffs complaint without preju-
dice.
The court also orders n dismissal OF
defendants cross-complaint and says
there is no merit in the plea that the
Judgment of the district court dis
tributing the one-half of the land to
Jennie Hays is an estoppel, By judg-
ment of the right OF the Hennefer
grandchildren, and their grantees to
set up and nrove their equitable
estate and to obtain the relief which
equity viii afford them upon the facts
of this case, when presented by the APP
propriate action and pleading In q
court of equity" The court further
holds that the application OF A II
Hennefer to letters of administrator
cannot be pleaded as an equitable
estoppel against him.
Insurance Money in Dispute.
A suit to recover Ss,O97.26 insurance
money was filed in the Third district