Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-04-21
AN AFFIRMATION
AND REVERSAL.
Case Of Skeen VS. Marriott Decided
by Supreme Court
lNFIRMITY OF HUMAN LAW
Case OF Rudolph KOnOid vs. Hio
Grande Western Railway Go.
IL Reversed.

- ~ NAN
The Supreme court handed down two
opinions today reversing the Judgment
OF .''e lower court In one and ahrm-
ing the other. The case reversed was
Rudolph Konold vs. the Rio Grande
Western. appellant ana the one az
iir1ned, Martha J. skeen ct AL appel
lants, vs. John Marriott
The first named action was an appeal
from the judgment Of the Seventh dis
trio, court. Jacob Johnson, Judge, in
favor OF the plainti1 Konold Tor 5000
for injuries claimed 10 have been sus-
tained by him by reason Of the ex-
plosion Of the boiler Of the locomotive,
which he was running. as engineer
upon defendants road The accident
occurred az Lower Crossing. Utah, be-
tween Helper and Grand Junction, on
May %. 1896. Kunold claimed the boiler
of the engine was Old ana worn out ana
sued 90 recover $50 900. The case was
tried last July and verdict for 5000
was returned Whefeupon the defendant
company appealed.
The Supreme court finds that the EVIL
dence was not sumcient 20 show that
the defendant companys rules ana reg
ulations, so far as they related 10 The
train on which plaintiff was injured had
been abrogated The admission of tes-
timony on this line, the court finds,
was error Objections were also made
by the counsel for plaintiff TO certain
Instructions OF the court 20 the jury
predic6ted upon the evidence relating
20 the abrogation OF the company
rules, which the court holds should have
been sustained. The court, after a
further review OF the evidence ana
instructions Of the lower court, orders
a reversal Of the case, ana instructs
Judge Johnson 20 grant a new trial.
The opinion is by Justice Baskin, chief
Justice Bartch and Justice Miner con-
curing.
This case was once tried In ogden
and reversed the court holding that
the action had 10 be commenced In the
county where the accident occurred.
Action in the Skeen case was brought
TO have declared and established an
express trust IN favor Of Martha l.
Skeen. Rebecca Hodson. Benjamin Mar
rlott and John Marriott Jr.. in q certain
alleged fund Of $1,000. which, IL was
claimed, was delivered to the defendant
John Marriott By Trezor Southwick, one
Of the plaintiffs 10 the suit
The complaint IN substance alleged
that on February 10. ISIS. Trezor South
wick delivered 20 the defendant John
Marriott $4,000. 10 be held by him In
trust for his own use and benefit dur
ing his lie time. and Tor the use OF
Martha l. skeen Rebecca Hods0n. Ben
iamin Marriott and John Marriott Jr. az
his (SouthwickO death that the de-
PENDANT disregarded his trust and in
vested a part Of the money In sheep
and expended the remainder for HE
own use and benefit that he disowned
his trust and was old, inhrm, and af-
hicted with weakness OF mind, etc.
Plaintiffs prayed for an establishment
OF the trust. the appointment OF a re-
ceiyer, and other relief The defend
| ants answer was a general denial OF
the allegations Of the complaint. The
case was tried before Judge Hart who
| sat In place OF Judge Rolapp at ogden.
on May l. 1898 and Judgment rendered
I'm favor Of defendant, when the plain
tits appealed.
The evidence showed that at one time
| the defendant was the husband OF four
wives three OF whom We're living at
| the time the alleged trust was created.
| The first wife died In 1856 All the
! wives had children by the defendant.
I the first having left six surviving her.
/ The first four plaintiffs % the suit
/ were the children OF the first wife.
| Trezer southWick was the defendants
| third wife. In lSsG the defendant, eX.
pectiug arrest on the charge OF
| unlawful cohabltauon conveyed
his estate. worth about Sl6,-
/ 900, 10 his wives then living,
but LETT none 10 the children OF his first
/ wife. To his third wife he conveyed a
| corner lot on Twenty-third street and
Washington avenue, Ogden where she
resided with her children and twenty
one acres OF land on Salt creek. and
gave her 100 head Of sheep. Ia Janu-
airy. 1921. the defendant was convicted
OF unlawful cohabitation and sentenced
| 20 six months in the penltentiary. He
disposed OF his property without con-
slderatiOn but with the undcrstand.Is
| that when he came out Of prison Il was
| 20 be transferred back 10 him, and some
Of II was transferred but not all.
In q lengthy review OF the case,
Chief Justice Bartch. who wrote the
| opinion. finds that the proof was IN
| sufficient 90 establish an express trust
/ To hold differently would be 90 open
| the doors 90 fraud and endanger the
titles OF individuals 90 their property
SAYS the court ''while we ARE clearly
/ Of the opinion that the proof Is wholly
insufficient 90 establish a trust there
| is evidence IN the record tending 20
show that the defendant provided IN
| his life time equitably out Of his estate.
! FOR AN his families and children. except
| the four who are plaintiffs herein; that
| De intended also 20 provide for those
four before his death (Which occurred
shortly after the trial.. and that the
property here in controversy in Justice,
ought 20 belong 10 them as their pro-
| portiOnatc share ~ their fathers estate.
II these things be true. then the un-
ayOidahle misfortune which VIII come
90 those children. upon the announce
ment az this decision, must De attribut-
ed TO the neglect. unintontional doubt
less. ON the part Of The owner OF the
property, to declare an enectual trust
and TO The infunity Of human law 10
reach such q case. In such event. our
selves powcTless. we can but hope and
trust that the love and affection which
ought To- exist In every household. and
the ties Of consanguinlW VIII be strong
enough 90 DO that Justice, which the
| security 0f titles to property forblds us
% do While IN such a case. under
such evidence, a trust can neither be
established or enforced by court, yet
as we have seem the law II not so un-
just as 20 prevent the parties them
a.. - - H.. a.