The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-08


swer to this to say that it is only by
virtue os its corporate character that
1t could be made a respondent to TINS
bill, ard that compliments cannot as
sert its corporate capacity, for the
purpose of suits, and in the same breath
deny it. But it sufficiently appears from
/ the bill that il is at least de facto
corporation, whose objects are not inn
| moral o. against public policy, and
the validity of its Incorporation cannot
be inquired into in this suit.
There is no merit in the claim that
the consideration for the stock came
wholly from three of the associates. ex-
cept as it tends TO show that the other
two had no real interest in the corpora
ton, and were simply nominal parties.
! Quoting from a recent case of Solomon
/ VS.. Saloman, passed on in England by
the house of lords. where the court held
/ that one beneficiary owned all the
1 stock. and six nominal ones associated
/ with him, constituted a valid corpora
ton, although in violation OF the spirit
of the law.
In the case at bar it is urged that no
! legal title vested in the corporation,
since it holds under q conveyance dated
/ four days prior to its Incorporation, and
| hence that ii cannot claim TO held over
the compliments equities, and the court
holds that the acceptance of the deed
viii be presumed as soon as the grantee
/ is competent to take, and it will speak
! from that time, whatever its date
may be.
The court further holds that as the
bill does rot aver notice, actual or in
law, to the corporation of the complain
ants equity. it does not show any right
to the conveyance of any part OF the
mining claims.
The real objection to the bill and COM
plant, so far as ]. S. Lakin is concern
ed. is the laches of the complainants.
The mining claims We're located by
Lakin May IA, 1892. they being presum-
ably mere prospects. They have in
creased in value until they have been
alleged to be worth more than 100000.
and more than 1900 worth of ore al
legged to have been extracted there
from.
For aught that appears. the COM
plainantS kept silent from May 1, 1892,
until Nov. Is, 1897 when the bill was
filed, waiting to see the result OF the eX-
penditu-e made on the faith that the
respondents were the sole owners of the
claims, and no explanation of this delay
is attempted. From aught that appears,
they knew of the locations when made,
and were unwilling to claim their inter-
est until others had developed their
value. While the maxim ''Vigilantibus
ron dOrmientibus aequitas subvenit
operates on all equitable rights, it ap-
plies with special force to such rights
in mining property, whose value may
greatly vary from day to day.
Citing case of Johnson VS.. Standard
Mining company, 1fS L. S. $50, which
case cites the language of Mr.. Justice
Miller. in Twin Lick Oil company vs.
Murphy. 81 U. S. 5S7, to the effect that
it is an injustice to permit one holding
the right to an ownership to such prop
erty to voluntarily await the event,
and then decide when the danger. which
is over, had been at the risk of another,
to come in and share the profits. Also
citing other cases.
The court further says: OF course, the
length of delay necessary to constitute
laches must depend upon the facts of
each particular case 1t may not be so
long as the period prescribed by the
statute of limitations for the recovery
at law of similar property. but when
the facts alleged show delay inexplain-
able under ordinary circumstances, it
is incumbent on the complainants to al
lege the particular circumstances eX-
cusing it.
The demurrers of all the respondents
were sustained.
]. NJ. Denny appeared for complain
ants; Booth, Lee & Gray for respond
ents.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.
L L
bring about the disbarment of Attor-
ney b. H. Jones met, with defeat, and
the report of the master, s. H. Lewis, .
was confirmed by the court.
Attorney d. II. Rives moved the
confirmation of the report, which he
said justly and fully exonerated Mr..
Jones from the charges preferred by
his fellow attorney.
Arguments were heard in the case of
]. H. Bacon on Assistant District At
tcrney Maginnis' statement that the
bond furnished was insufficient, as it
was not in accordance with the order
of the court. The court took the mat
ter under Amusement.
In the case of the United States
against 0. J. Salisbury. the court de-
MED the application to file a substitute +
complaint for the one which was lost, +
on the ground that it did not appear
that the defendant ever appeared in the .
court. The district attorney was given .
permission to order the dismissal of the /
case from the Salt Lake county district (
court.
An affidavit was filed by Assistant
District Attorney Maginnis against St
Y. LIE Sieur and others, showing they
had disobeyed a previous order of the
court. An order was made command .
ing them to appear before the court on
Feb. 18th to show cause why they
Attorneys George L. Nye and II. c.
were admitted to practice in
the circuit court.
The case of w. K. Sullivan VS.. Lillian
E. Collins and others was dismissed by
Court settings were made as follows:
Feb. 16-J. r. De Lamar VS.. J.
W. Kinney, adverse claims of Hard
Times lode and Song Bird Nos. ! and ,.
Feb. 1S-W. X. Sullivan VS.. Mark
Spencer ct al.
Feb. 22-Christine Schucraft VS.. John
A. Fritch.
Feb. Henry D. Smith VS.. Henry
Newell ct al.
Feb 24-United States VS. the Union
Pacific Railroad company, its receivers.
and the Union Pacific Coal company;
United States VS.. Union Pacific Rail-
road company and Union Pacific Coal
both to set aside title to
lands; United States VS.. Union Pacific
Railroad company and Union Pacific
Coal company, on cloud on title to
lands.
Feb. civilian Perego and Michael
T. Clark VS.. David D. Irwin.