Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-12-02
Ogden Farming Case Remanded
Back for New Trial.
CONTRACT WAS IN ISSUE.
saprcmc:court pinds That Agrcer,cn,
11esween %. a. sn,ysh aud Jcseph
Abba Wss binding.

The Supreme court handed down an
opinion today In the case Of Joseph Alb
la. appellant. W ID. a. smyth. rtvcrs-
Ing the cause and remandIng che samc
60 che Second district court with diicc-
lions to grant a new trial.
This was an action brought BY che
piaintiff Abba 10 recover from the Dc.
PENDANT smytb the sum Of $500. for the
alleged breach of a certain contract.
Tho parties reside In ogden. and on
April 'th. 1895. they entered into on
agreement whereby gmyth agreed to
employ Abba ON hls farm and promised
Go pas him In onc-half Of the crops
raised. smyth ~ receive thrty-fiyc ton,
Of hay and nifty bushels OF oats before
tho division, the remainder o. be equally
divided between the two. Smyth fur.
cher agreed. according 60 the termH "
che contract. To furnish all seed, farm
ing Implements. horHca and wagons
the board and lodging Of Abba. and 60
engage y man 20 help. also Go furnish
water to mature the crops, tn. agr,e-
ment 10. remain In forcc during the
farn,ng SEASONS OF the years ISIS. 1883
and 1900.
Plaintiff alleged that he entered upon
che farm In April. 1895. and worked un-
I'll November q. following. that he per-
formed his part OF the contract. but
shat defendant failed 60 carry out his
part. fcpudiatcb tho agreement and
drove plaintiff on the farm. thrcatenln
him with violence " he rctnaircd.
In his answer smytb admitted the
contract. but alleged that Abba neglect
I'd his work and allowed the crops to
~ damaged, lie oct up counter
claim OF 800.
The ease was tried before Judge Ro.
tapp and jury. the latter. under a pcr-
s..stcry instruction OF IN. aOurt, re-
turning verdict no cause u action"
On favor OF the defendant. From this
Judgment Abba appealed.
II was contendcd by counsel for the
respondent Smyth that the contract
was void under the statute OF frauds.
The supreme court holds that while
the contract was loosely drawn IL waA
reasonably certain as to all the ncces-
sary requirements OF memorandum
as required by the statute. Both
parties executed the writing which i'm
posed mutual obligations on each.
II was also claimed by the respond
ent that the testimony tending to show
compliance with the contract on the
part OF the plaintiff. and breach
thereof on the part OF defendant. was
inadmisaihle and was properly rejected
by the court. The supreme court does
not concur In this view and holds that
PROOF showing that plaintiff compiled
with his part OF the contract and that
defendant failed In hlA was competent
testimony ana should have gone 10 tho
jury.
The court further finds that the an
swcr OF defendant did not raise the
Issue under tho statute Of frauds ana
that the plaintiff had no notice OF this
part OF the defense until the trial had
began.
"By admitting the contract, alleging
its fulnllmant by defendant and nom
fulnll by the plaintiff. and claim.
ing damages for such non-fuliillmcnt.
the defendant" the court says. was
hardly In a position 10 insist upon the
statute na "a bar TO the action. or to
urge that the contract was unilntrral
and binding upon the defendant only.
In effect. the answer admits the con-
tract, asserts It's binding force upon
both patircH, claims under II. RULES
unon It's breach by plaintiff. as "a
ground upon which to recover dam
ares for Its -fulhllment. and yet
this court Il asked to say that the
contract II uniiatcral. lacks mutually,
and was void under the statute "
frauds, II IL useless to assert that de-
fendnnt has not acted upon and treat.
ed the contract as binding upon both
partief''
In rejecting the testimony tending to
show plaintiffs compliance with the
contract and the breach of defendant
the court holds that Judge Rolapp
erred
Justice Miner wrote the opinion and
was concurred in by chief Justice
Bartch. Justice Baskln concurred In
the result,