Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-06-11
ANOTHER BIG SUIT.
DeserHl National Bank Against W. S.
Burton and Others.
VERDICT IN THE TAYLOR SUIT.
Jury Finds for Plain II In the sum Of
S11,3 42-Cass Of Morrow VS.
M,rril---tourt Noes.

8 Judge Cherry Is engaged today hear
ing the case OF the Desefst Nation
al Bank against w. S. Burton,
Elias Morris, l.. q. Hsrdy. w. @.
Burtou, L. M. iWeiIer. o. II. Hardy
and Henry Dinwoodey, in which
plaintiff -eeks to recover the sum OF
$685. 90, alleged to be due plaintiff
on certain promissory notes. given by
defendants to plaintiff as stock holders
OF the Burtou-Gardner compsny. kThe
question Involved lie whether a written
guarantee, given liinllff by defend.
ants for S25, 600, covers back Indebted.
ness as well as future Indebtedness up
to $4,000 all told.
The complaint alleges that ON the
18th day OF December, 1892, the Bur.
ton.Gsrdner company was IL
debted to tho plaintiff In
the sum Of $4,000 for moneys
heretofore loaned and advanced,
and evidenced by two promissory
notes for $40, 900 each made by the
BurtOn-Gsrdner company, and bssrine
date OF October 20, 1891, and Nov m.
Der IS, 1891, respectively. Inc frat
note was endorsed by w. s. Burton,
.. II. Hardy anu K. NJ. Weller, anu
the second by Elias Morris, l.. q.
Hardy anu w. b. Burton.
II is then alleged that on the 18th OF
Jaauary, 1892, all OF the defendants
bamed agree that II the bank would
acc pt new notes for the amount GOV.
cred by the first two notes and would
renew them until payment should bs
demsnded, mi would advance n fur.
ther sum OF IS. 00J--mRkins q total OF
| 25,00O-,hat they would guarantee
the payment OF the full amount, with
inteIsst nj the rate OF ten per cent per
annum.
In consideration Of this promise
anu agreement plaintiff cancelled
and, turreudered the first TWO
notes TO the indorsers and by notes and
Overdrafts advanced the sum OF $26,.
4i2. The time OF payment was
xtended from time tt time, and on
tho 10th OF August, 1893, u demand Tor
payment was made OF tho Burton
Gardner company, and OF each defen-
dant, which was refused. No part OF
the Indebtedness las been paid except
The sum OF $40, 429'48 and no payments
have been made since the 18th of July,
1895.
The note given by defendants to the
| plaintiff does not state the indebtedness
covered by the first two notes, or
mention any loans made by plaintiff TO
pay the same. This plaintiff admits
was an inadvortance on Its part and q
mutual mistake OF b.th 1t and deien-
| dants.
Plaintiff prays for judgment against
each and NIL OF the defendants IN the
sum Of S20,932. 80, with interest
at the rate OF ten per cent per anuum
from the 3lst OF August, 1898 and also
asks the court to 50 reform ana oon-
meet the latter promise OF the defend.
ants, given In writing, as to bring 1t
| within the understanding anu inten.
| lou OF both plaintiff and Defendants.
A portion Of the defendants make
answer and deny the allega-
| ions of plaintiff. 1t lie admit.
| led that the defenda ats were indebted
to plaintid TOR moneys losned to
the BurtoI- Gardner company after
| the ex ;cution and delivery OF the
written guaranty. 1t Is also denied
that there was any mistake or mad.
vertance in the written guaranty. II
10 stated that the Burton.GArdner
company received after the signing
vi the guaranty, the sum OF 81, 90l 20,
| OF which SILL. 20 has been paid back.
IL is then alleged In The answer that
the written guaranty was prepared by
| plaintiff, without any ooBiultation, ad-
vice or uRgesliUn from either or any
OF the uefe nGants and that when pre-.
eenteu TO ue'endRnts Its terms and
conditions were pied and by them
delivered to the plaintiff. II is denied
that there was any -ajvertence or
miatske on their part, and further OIL.
legged that platinum was he holder OF
the guaranty long enough 10 have
rectified and corrected any mistakes, II
any existed.
LIE Grand Young d Ellis & Ellie
are attorneys for pisinuff, Marshall &
Royle and Moyle, Zane Il Costigau
or the defendants.