Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-12-06
THREE SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS

The Supreme Court handen Gown
three opinions today,aiHrming the judg-
ment OF the trial courts in two cases
and granting a motion TO dismiss the
appeal IN the other.
one Of the cases affirmed was that OF
Sarah Ellie Cavanaugh, appellant, VS.
o. D. Salisbury.
This was an equitable action found
ed upon a contract, dated March AN,
1850 by which plaintiff. as the sole heir
OF Michael Cayanaugh sought to re-
cover from the firm of Gilner, sails.
bury q Co., 1000 shares OF the capital
stock of the Highland Mining company
OF DcadWood Dakota, ANA the divi-
dends paid thereon amounting In all
20 about $4,000.
IL win Doe observed that the contract
was executed I'm the name OF Gllmer-
Salisbury a. Co. That company al the
time the contract was made was
partnership COMPOSED Of John H. Gill
mer. who died in this city several years
ago o. j. Salisbury and his brother
Monroe. The firm was engaged In the
stage business between here and Park
city and elsewhere The contract was
signed by John r. Gilmer, he signing
the firm name Go DO. and the question
for Judge Hies 90 determine was
whether the other individual members
OF the firm were bound by the terms Of
the agreement Judge Hiles found that
Mr. Gumer received the 1000 shares and
agreed 20 hold the stock in trust for
Cavanaugh under the pool agreement
receiving 5000 therefor. His honor
also found that the other members OF
the firm knew nothing Of the tran5ac-
ton
The appellant insisted that the find
lngs were not supported by the proof
but the Supreme Court holds 20 the
contrary. and further finds from the
record that the appellant had no right
OF recovery against Mr.. o. J, Salisbury.
The opinion was delivered by Chief
Justice Barich. justices Miner and
Baskin concurring
EUREKA CITY TAX CASE.
The title Of the other case affirmed
was the Eureka Hill Mining company,
appellant. VS. Eureka City.
The suit was 90 recover from Eureka
City the sum OF SGl517. levied and col
lected as tax on the net proceeds Of
mines and paid by the appellant under
protest. The court below held that the
appellant failed 90 show the invalidity
OF the tax and the Supreme Court fails
TO find anything 20 justify a reversal
Of that judgment
The opinion OF the court was deliv-
cred by Justice Baskin and Chief Jus
tice Bartch and Justice Miner concur
I'm the afnrmance Of the judgment but
| dissent from the holding contained In
the decision with reference TO the
place where the net proceeds Of the
mine are taxable The majority Of the
court holds that the net proceeds Of
the ore taken 90 the surface through
the main shaft Of appellants mine be-
Ing personal property, should DE taxed
by Eureka city as other personal prop
| crty.
THE APPEAL DISMISSED,
The court ordered a dismissal IN the
case Of G.. W Popp VS. the Daisy Gold
Mining company appellant. The appeal
! was prosecuted from an order pendentc
| lie. appointing a receiver to take
! charge OF the property ~ the defend
amt consisting OF mining claims The
/ supreme court holds that as a general
rule an appeal viii not he from an or
| der OF this kind. The appointment OF
q receiver, It H. further held, is with