Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-03-07
STATE SUPREME COURT.
Meeting Pursuan, to Adjournment Held Today
and Cases on Appeal Argued.
TWO MANDATES RECEIVED AND FILED.


The Supreme court met pursuant to
adjournment today. with Chief justice
Zane, Justice Bartch and Miner ON tine
bench. A goodly number of leading at
torneys were present when court
opened. The first case called was that
of the Deseret National Bank vs. w. %
Burton ct al, appellants with Moyie'
Zane & Costigan appearing for appel
lants and Moyle & Dickson. Ellis Il
Ellis for respondent.
Action In the case was brought by inc
bank to reform written guaranty so
as to make 1t cover past Indebtedness
as well as future loans and advances
when the terms OF the guaranty ohiy
included future loans and advances
The case was tried before Judge Cherry
some time ago who rendered JuuEnleht
AGAINST the defendants for $2f.Sob.t', ,hc
amount sued for by the bank peihe
$4,000. , 49,, ,,,,,ron-
The lowed court reformed the gn ,aai,,
~ and rendered Judgment hccofnlhb's >
n was, the only issue of fact beioTe ~.
me anneol is upon both questions Oh
law and fact.
OGDEN WATERwoRKS CASE
The ease of ogden City. plaintif anu
respondent VS. the Bear River lrrigat,v,i.
q ogden Wnterworks company, 1"i
K, Conklin ct al, defendants anu ~
reliant. was before the supreme coul
today on appeal from the oruei N
Judge Rolnpp. appointing Thomas -,
noe receiver of the ogden waterworhs
during the pendency of the SUIT TO ue,
termine the legality of the so-cal'eu
lease or gift of the water rights anu
waterworks system owned py ~,
city, to John r. Boutwell, anu ai.e
wards assigned by him 10 the ueiei''
ants. ~. ,,ornav of
ogdep. fudge pey and Attorney Z. e.
Richards appeared for the cry, ni,u
David Evans and Judge Howatt anu " "
a. Vaughn, of Kansas CITY Represented
the defendants. ,,,a,a ,vos
hafara the Supreme court few weeks
40 on an application of the defendan,s !.
for a writ of certiororari, put me VII,
WINS refused, the court noluihs th'
remedy was by appeal. ~
The appellants claim that Juuge W.
lapp erred in the appoint OF rece, ,urc
The action Is legal in the mature
NJ an eiectment and trial of title TO tne
property, and therefore the equi,tpi,e
remedy OF u receiver cannot ne sraii.eu
I'he defendants having previously
given notice of their intention TO move
for n change or venue, tiit Npu.s
no power TO proceed further with tne
case to grant the order changing inc
place of trial. , Il,
a. That having made such order "
excess OF the Jurisdiction OF the court
IL was d nulety.
That the order appointing q re-
ceiyer is final judgment from when
an appeal lies to the supreme court
The plaintiffs contention is:
l. That the action Is not q legal one
hut is purely equitable. calling Tor an
accounting by the defendants, OF me
rents. issues and profits received by tne
defendants from the city's water-rat.
and waterworks system for the pas
seven years. the return OF the property
nv the water company, which, II II
claimed. holds the property as trustee
for the city, and for damages Tor th'
withholding of the same and the des
tr,lotIon of the old system.
3. That the lower court had powel
and that It was Its duty to place th'
property in the hands OF receiver; u
collect and preserve the rentals ai1s
ing therefrom. during the tendency o
the suit. as the present water compan!
Is insolvent, even before motion ~
n change OF venue was disposed of.
g. That the order appointing u r.
ceiyer was within the power or IN
lower court to make
4. That the order appointing re
ceiyer is interlocutory purely ana u
no sense n final Judgment ana there
fore not appealable.
Jurors Accepted.