Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-12-23
MRS. COLE YHE WINNER
Judge Norell Renders Decision 10 an In
pOrtant Mining Suit.
DEED TO CERTAIN PROPERTY SET ASIDE
and vGfeio -Dccision In Case OF Smell
grove W Earl-Other Items.

Judge Norrell rendered a decision to-
day in the case OF Mrs. a. A. Cole,
formerly Ehrhard, VS. PAMELA Ed
munds, giving judgment for the plain
tiff and setting aside the defendants
deed to considerable mining property.
The case was tried last month and
occupied nearly the whole of weeks
time in hearing.
The property in dispute lies in the
Tintic mining district and embraces
the Nom De Plume and Vallejo claims
According to the complaint it APP
pears that In 1886 Mrs. Cole was the
owner of the property, and In March
of the same year, she entered into II
contract with Mrs. Edmunds, whereby
the latter was to do certain amount
of assessment and other work on the
claims within period of eight months,
after which Mrs. Cole should deed her
an undivided one-third interest In and
to the properties. Mrs. Cole further
alleged that man by the name OF
Charles L. Blandln. formerly lawyer
in this city, and Mrs. Edmunds, through
fraudulent representations induced her
to sign another and different contract
to the one first agreed upon, and TO
execute a deed to the property when,
as a matter Of fact, Mrs Cole believed
she was merely signing an escrow for
a deed.
The court in passing upon the issues
sustains the objection of defendant to
the introduction OF the files from the
United States land office and excludes
mn consideration N
making up his decision.
The court finds that Blandin was the
agent and attorney of Mrs. EdInunds
at the time of the execution OF the
deed and contract in question; that
the plaintiff executed a deed to one
third interest in the mining claims TO
Mrs. Edmunds, with certain condi-
lions; that the plaintiff. while she
signed n deed to Mrs Edmunds. was
under the impression at the time That
1t was delivered aud effective only
upon the performance of the condi-
lions mentioned in the contract; that
she first learned of defendants claim
to a deed absolute in October, 1891, ana
that therefore, although the deed was
made in 1886, the statute of limitations
did not begin to run until october, 1891,
when che first learned OF the defend
ants claiming a deed absolute.
The court further finds that the
contract and deed are parts of the
same transaction and that the defend
ant violated the contract in the fol-
lowing particulars:
First-That Mrs. Edmunds did not
work each and all of the mining claims
at her own expense.
Second-That she did not
perform the work in a manner
mutually agreeable to each OF the par
ties, nor of such an amount as was
satisfactory mutually to each of the
parties.
Third-That no part of the ore taken
from the mines, nor the proceeds
thereof, was ever paid or rendered
Mrs. Cole.
Fourth-That Mrs Edmunds aban-
doned all work on the claims, or re-
fused to let Mrs. Cole 20 on the claims
or do the necessary assessment work
and refused to do such work herself
Fifth--That the refusal of Mrs, Ed
munds to let Mrs. Cole upon the prop
erty for any purpose; the subsequent
relocation by Hickman and Beeman.
while Mrs. Edmunds was In possess
sion and keeping Mrs. Cole out tho
apparent acquiescence of Monat (de-
PENDANTS agenD in the relocation of
the claims, by Hickman and Beeman
and Monats acceptance OF an Inter
est in the same, without any consid-
Grafton therefor, indicates "a scheme on
the part of Mrs. Edmunds to mpli-
cate and entangle the rights of Mrs.
Cole and TO defeat her title to the
property. Concluding, the court says:
Finally, the last clause of the writ
ten contract of defendant with the
plaintiff appears to defeat her right to
recover against the plaintiff In this
case. Her last clause Is as follows: II
said Edmunds fails to perform or have
work on said mining claims. performed