Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-01-27
LOWER COURT UPHELD.
Supreme Cour, Decision in the Case Of Hanks
vs.. Matthews Ct Al.
ACTION TO RECOVER ON APPEAL BOND.
Court Holds THAT 1t Was Executed to In
demnify Plaintiff Against Damages
Jury in Edwards Case Disagree. -

The Supreme Court handed down an
opinion today IN the case of Mary ~
Hanks, appellant. VS. Thomas Mat
thews. Arthur Brown and Matthew
Cullen, affirming the judgment OF the
lower court. he opinion was written
by Justice Bartch and concurred In by
Chief Justice Zane. Justice Miner con-
Cured in the judgment.
Action in this case was brought upon
bond on appeal from the Supreme
Court OF the State to the United States
Supreme Court, to recover from the
principals and sureties damages for
rents and profits from certain real
estate in dispute. which accrued pend
ing the appeal.
The history of the case shows that in
June, 1854. Ephraim NJ. Hanks, hus'
band OF Mary e. Hanks, executed a
deed for certain real property to
Thomas Matthews. at the same time
giving him possession of the same.
The deed was an absolute one. but in
reality was given as mortgage 10
secure the payment of certain money.
In February, 1855, commenced proceeu-
ings against Matthews praying that
Ine Qteu De utCldTtu IL anu
that upon the payment of the amount
due Matthews, the property be re-
conveyed to Hanks. ON the 18th Of
May, 1890, the district court gave judg-
ment In favor of Hanks who immedl-
ately conveyed the property to his wifd
by warranty deed, Mrs. Hanks having
paid the amount due Matthews into
court for her husband. Matthews then
appealed to the Supreme Court of
Utah where the decree and judgment
OF the lower court was affirmed. on
the ard of Jan. 1893, Matthews appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, Brown and Cullen becoming
the sureties of Mrs. Hanks for $1,000.
pledging themselves to pay all dam
ages and costs II Mrs. Hanks should
fail In her appeal. The United States
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal,
and on receipt of the mandate and re-
mittitur by the district court, 1udg-
ment was again entered in accordance
Herewith. On the 18th or July. 1896, Il
deed was executed to Hanks by the
clerk of the court. During the pend
ency of the appeal Matthews collected
rents and profits of the porperty in
controversy, amounting to $3.50. This
amount plaintiff sought to obtain from
Matthews and his bondsmen. Brown
and Cullen.
The defendants interposed n de-
WHICH, aiuOuE othfi
legged that the demands for rent was
not allowed by the Supreme Court Of
the United States; that the bond did
not provide for the payment OF rent,
but only for damages. The district
court sustained the demurrer from
which Mrs. Hanks appealed.
The Supreme Court holds that tho
ruling of the lower court was not err
roneous. and further says that "a
bond on appeal in such an action IL
required and executed 10 indemnify
the plaintiff against damages which
he may sustain. pending the appeal, by
the wrongful withholding OF the possess
sion by the defendant. The judgment,
In the action pleaded in the case at
bar, conclusively determines that the
possession of the premises in con-
troversy. belonged to the plaintiff there
in. and during the pendencyfof the APP
peal, was wrongfully withheld from
him on other plaintiff having been sub
stituted."