Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-06-09
REHEARING IS DENIED.
Action Of The Supreme Court in the Deserei
National Bank Suit,
AGAINST THE BURTON d GARDNER Co.


The Supreme court today denied the
petition Tor ro-hearing In the case oi
the Deacrot National Bank vs. Henry
Dinwoo1cy ct AL
This case was decided some time
since In favor Of the defendants. when
the plaintiff bank pctliloncd Tor o. re-
hearing. giving Il ns its opinion that
Judge Jacob Johnson. who wrote the
decision. erred IN some ~ the views cN-
pressed
An abstract of the case shows that
In January. 1902 the liurton-gardncr
company was indeptod 10 the DeHofct
National Bank iu the sum Of S21o1O.
represented by twu promissory notes.
each Tor 10000. The notes wrru ul-
dorHed by certain directors ~ the Bur
ton-Gnfdner company. but not nll N
them.
The notes fen due the month follow
ing their endorsement. when defendant
asked Tor an extension ~ time and the
loan Increased g. t2i.O00 This wn-
done hy the bank. which nlipncd the
understanding and agreement 10 be-
that all % tho directors ~ the burton.
Gardner company would endorse and
guarantee the new paper
on the 18th % March. 1899. u guarantee,
signed ~ n. NJ Weller. -. ". Hardy
Henry Dlnwoodry. W. a. Hurtpn. Elias
Morris. l.. q. Hardy and W. G. nurton.
representing the Burt0u-Garlnor CONF
pany, was given the bank The paper
read that they or either ~ them would
pay 10 tho Dcserct National bank. any
and MI sums Of money which may be-
loaned or advanced 10 the burton
Gardner company upon notes or ~ ac-
count a. the amount of $4,000. nay.
az a.. laH u.
The bank alleged that II was the In.
tonuOn when the guarantee was made
that u should cover the previous notes
an well 40 future loans up to So 900.
and that the defendants 20 Understood
the matter. but that BY a mistake of
specifically In terms. cover the indaht.
cdnesr OF the two nrst notes, u asked
that the guarantee be- 1n reformed ~
81 do what was az first Intended
The defendants denied an the allcrn-
lions and practically alleged that the
debt was paid ana denied that II was
their Intention that tho last paper
should include the first two notes
The Issues were tried before Judge
Cherry last June. the court rendering
judgment IN favor NJ the ulalntin hank
for $1,000 and costs ami reforming tho
last paper ao that Il would cover the
alleged intention 81 the parties COM
The defendant. Horny Dlnwoodey.
appealed 10 the supreme Court setting
out nH orrur the reforming ~ the In
ntrumrnt by Judge cherry.
The plaintiff took the position that
the document. taken with the clrcum-
stances surrounding the ease. was
broad enough 10 cover the future
debtcdnosa. even had tho court re-
fused 10 reform a.
The Supreme court rendered ~ de-
cislon on the 18th 81 last Aprii revcrn.
ing Judgc Cherry. and holding that
the evidence "a reform the note was IN.
sufficient and that without q rcfnrma.
tion n was not broad enough 60 cover
prior Indebtedness plnintin petitlpnrd
Tor a rehcarlng on the grounds already
stated. with the result that the peti.
tion was to-day denied
Tho status ~ the case now IN that the
lower court. In new trial, viii de-
tvrmlnc the amount " money furnished
by the pvaeret National bank 10 the
burton Gardner company cove
cred by the guarantee signed
by all the directors 81 the
defendant company Whatever that
amount Ia judgment will be- rendered
accordingly.