The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-03
Supreme Court Upsets Lower Court
Judgments.
BUILDING & LOAN CASE
BETZ NOT ENTITLED TO RE-
COVER.
Court Holds That His Contract, IN
der Which He Was to Share In
Profits, Binds Him Equally to
Share In Losses, Which the Com
pany Claimed to Have Sustained.

An opinion was handed down by thG
supreme court yesterday reversing tbs
judgment of the lower court in de-
tiff in the case of George L. Betz VS.
the Peoples Building & Saving asso-
citation, appellant. The plaintiff, who
is a resident of Salt Lake county. sued
to recover S1,oS5.5S on account OF with
drawal Of his shares of stock in the
association in pursuance of his con-
struction of the company's rules and
regulations.
Ground For Appeal.
| Defendant appealed from the judg-
ment on the ground that plaintiff must
bear his share of the associations losses
for the year 1885, due TO depreciation of
assets from general shrinkage in val
ues. Plaintiff by proxy voted for the
adoption of a resolution charging all
stock with % per cent of loss, and this
fact was admitted at the trial.
The supreme court opinion held that
plaintiff must share his proportion of
losses just as he is entitled to share in
the profits. AS to the contention that
to make plaintiff bound by the resolu-
ton charging him with his share of the
years losses on stock values being an
+ impairment of contract, the opinion
held there was no virtue in IT.
In remanding the case for re trial.
the opinion remarked that the lower
court, through oversight. must have
Inexperienced the salient facts in the
action.
Case From Ogden.
The supremescourt handed down an
opinion yesterday in which the settle
ment of a farming contract was in
volved. The case in point was an ac
ton brought against d. A. Smyth of
Ogden by Joseph Abba of Warren,
Utah, to recover damages to the amount
of si,5O6, alleged to have been sustained
on account OF the alleged breach of a
written contract wherein Smyth agreed
to employ the appellant on the formers
farm for a space of three years. for
which privilege the party of the second
part in the contract was TO receive half
of all the crops raised on the farm;
Abba to further receive thirty-five tons
of hay and fifty bushels of oats, to be
taken out from the land before the
division, the remainder to be equally
divided between the two parties to the
agreement.
d. A. Smyth. in his answer, admitted
the contract but alleged that the plain
tiff had neglected the farm and per-
mitted the crops to suffer, and that he
finally abandoned the homestead en-
tirely. Accordingly he put in coun-
ter claim for $500 damages.
Heard Before Rolapp.
The case was heard before Judge II.
H. Rolapp in the Second district and
the decision was rendered in favor of
Smyth.
Yesterday the supreme court reversed
this decision and remanded the case TO
the district court with directions ito
grant new trial. The supreme court |
held that by. signing this agreement
both parties agreed to Its terms. Ecacli |
part of the contract is as much Abba's |
as IT is Smyth's." The opinion affirmed
that the lower court erred in rejecting |
the testimony offered tending to show |
a compliance with the contract on the +
part of the plaintiff, and breach /
thereof on the part OF the defendant |
and in holding the contract to be uni
lateral and not binding upon the plain
tiff. and in holding the contract void !
under the statute of frauds.