The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-12-05
TEE EENNEFER ESTATE.
Judge Hiles Yesterday Rendered
DECISION In the Case.

Decision In the Case.
Judge Hiles yesterday rendered his
decision in the case of A. H. Hennefer
ct al. VS.. Jennie E. Hays, dismissing
both the complaint and cross-com
plant, and allowing the plaintiffs to
start another suit if they so desire.
The case has been in courts in one
form or another for a long time, and
it looks as if it would remain there for
some time to come.
The record shows that in 1875 one
Abraham Hays was the owner Of a
piece of property in the southeastern
part Of the city. He had four grand
children, Edward Hennefer, William
Hennefer and Rebecca Hennefer, with
whom Abraham Hays entered into an
agreement that if they would support
and care for him and his wife for the
remainder of their lives, the four grand
children should have the property in
question.
In December of the same year Mr..
Hays died, and his wife died in 1887,
the four grandchildren having provided
for both until their deaths, and at the
same time built three houses on the
property and otherwise improved it.
After the death of Mrs. Hays, A. H.
Hennefer petitioned the probate court
for a decree Of distribution Of the prop
GflY. Jennie L. nays, dllOlASI
child of Abraham Hays, residing in
New York, appeared and opposed the
decree of distribution TO the other four
grandchildren, claiming TO be heiress
to half the property of Abraham Hays.
The probate court ruled against Jennie
Hays, and granted the decree Of distri-
button Jennie Hays appealed to the
district court, which set aside the rul-
ing Of the probate court on the ground
20 +7.f1 Ioal-n1 iPtiO11
and awarded half the estate to Jennie
Hays and the other half to the other
four grandchildren.
A. H HennefeT, Edward Hennefer,
William Hennefer and Rebecca Henne-
fer, now Bunce, brought suit to quiet
their title to all the property and set
up the contract they had entered into
with Abraham Hays to support him
and his wife during their lives.
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 1895, precludes the possibility of Civ
ing relief on the pleadings of plain
tiffs. The supreme court held that '.it
is error to grant a decree of quieting
title on proof Of facts showing a right
to a specific performance simply, and
again that unless the findings embrace
all the facts essential 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 pleadings
but adds that a proper pleading would
secure, to the Hennefer grandchildren
q fun and equitable remedy.
The court then orders a dismissal.
of plaintiffs complaint, without preju-
dice.
The court also orders a dismissal OF
defendants cross-complaint, and says
there is no merit in the plea that the
Judgment of the district court distrib-
uting the one-half of the land to Jen.
ME Hays is an estoppel, by judgment
of the right of the Hennefer grandchil.
dren. and their grantees, to set up anC
prove their equitable estate and to OBJ
tain the relief which equity will AFFORD
them upon the facts of this case, whe1
presented by the appropriate actor
and pleading in a court of equity" TIL,
court further holds that the appIica
ton of a. H. Hennefer to letters of ad
ministration cannot be pleaded as al
equitable estoppel against him.