Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-01-20
! STPRENE COURT RULING.
!, All Appeals on Law Can Only ''"'''''
" Questions Of Law
..sr vs. Ferguson Decided
' Resulting in the UNFOLDING u
I.ower Court.

.,.,.o,,,e court has nanueu WV"
INV ,,,, in the case of lsaiic ~
~ appellant VS. WIN. go
Whi''" was argued and submlt'eu
son. ,,orv 18th. The opinion a'''ii''
on Jan 's,t NJ the lower court.
nv p,sintlff sued the defendant m.o ssso
road supervisor. to recoNei 80,
,.mares. alleging in his complain. , n,ar
aai'" ,,,a owner of a certain uus,i W.
. ne - ~ innd In Utah county wh'o" ns
sec,'on m the expense of fencing H.
hAu ear,her. 1896, defendant cut uoWn
In ped the fence. Defendant III
,ls answer admitted the cut''ne uv w.,
, justified himself by ciaiihihs '"
wv ;snce had been erected on puphe
The court below found ior
.,ndont with his costs, from
tne ,.S nm appeal was taken ..,,,
wnlon ascidlne the case the court takes
nasion TO lay down certain n,i 10,
90 NJ the supreme court III an i
lions rhe court says that In Appears
cases. 4, rannot determine questions Oh
Oh l ia" nreponderance of the eViuehc.,
iaot a,s hat in appeals of equity pom
put s.,a testimony may be consluereu'
lact 11,nn,s,ittitlon, section .. article o.
lne ,oted which reads as foliows'
Is Entity cases the appeals may pe
hoth Law and fact; In cases az Jaw
me appeal shall be on Questions u '""
alone. ,,,.,,o, savs. .'The de-
in nv Weston on this appeal Is wheth-
". .r Inc road in dispute is Il pupilc nisn
er ,he ronnsel for the appellant. inter
way Insists that II was never dedicated
as such to public use. - ,,,,s
DThe court, among other tninss,
,o,nd that from the year 1881 uomn "a
io wy ~ fine when the acts complained
~, ~ ,,ars committed the plaintin lanu'
VI ~'h,ch Tho road Is located. was used
w abandoned and dedicated 10
Nv nnhlio use and convenience: that
.,e a rr of the land acquiesced In the
ssa of the land as a highway during az
~ That time, and that Inc piaih.li
herein and his grantors anu pr
au occas ,ons acquiesced in and agreed
az nc use of said roadway, as IL now
Isis and as II has existed since 1867.
~ ia urged for the appellant, that
,ha evidence Is insufficient to JUSTIFY
m NE rndinys This, however, Is n
question Of fact in a case at law, anu
therefore, we have no power 10 uohsiuer
w s,,s,nasa az the findings. The only
nroyInce of this court in such a case
,a ascertain whether there Is any
isyi,lmate proof which supports them.
and n there rs then we are conclusive
y hound by them, regardless OF 'sne,
ther or not the findings are 5upporteu
by a preponderance of the testimony
a. vhether In our Judgment, ON all the
evidence. they are justified. II ~ ohiy
,,hsn there ia no competent evidence,
In law case 10 warrant the finding
fact which materially affects their
rights of a litgant, that this court VIII
interfere and hold the finding nugatory
and void. In such event the question
as TO the proof to sustain the finding,
becomes one Of law, and fails within
the jurisdiction OF the appellate court.
"Iikewise. where a case at law, In
this State is tried before a jury. the
appellate court Is pOwerless to disturb
the verdict on the ground of the in
sufficiency of the evidence. IL there Is
any legitimate proof to support 1t.
because in no case. whether tried by
the court. with or without n jury, can
we determine questions of fact. This
is so by virtue OF the Constitution,
as follows: In equity cases the appeal
shall be on questions OF law alone
Under this provision, 1t will be OBJ
served. an appeal may be taken in
equity cases on questions of fact as
well as Of law. The appellate court.
therefore, by necessary implication and
intendment, has the same Jurisdiction
and power In equity cases. to determine
questions of fact as well as Of law.
and may 70 behind the findings and
decree Of the trial court. consider all
the evidence, decide on which side the
prepondetance thereof It. ascertain
whether or not the proof justifies the
findings and decree, and modify or set
aside the findings Of the decree. and en-
ter or direct such findings and decree
70 be entered as the evidence. in the
Judgment Of the appellate tribunal,
may Justify.
The constitutional provision. how
ever confers no such jurisdiction and
power upon the appellate court In
cases at law, for, in such cases the
appeal Is expressly limited TO questions
o. law alone and hence the jurisdic-
tOn and power In law cases are limited
70 the determination of questions OF
Jaw. We can, therefore, in cases at
Jaw examine the evidence only so far
as may be necessary TO determine ques-
uons OF law. and have nothing to do
WIN the sufticiency of the evidence to
Justify finding or decree, unless there
Is 20 proof TO support It,"
Ihe opinion was written by Justice
barteh and conourred in by Chief Jus
uce Zane and Justice Miner.