Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-12-13

tho time OF his resgnatisn from the
presidency Of the company the sale OF
his stock was absolute. The Supreme
court finds no evidence OF fraud or OF
secret trust as charged.
REVERSAL IN LILLY-RALPH CASE
In an opinion written by chief
Justice Miner rehcarlng Is ordered In
the case OF the Lily Mining company
vs. NJ. kellogg, appellant. This case was
tried In the fourth district court before
Judge McCarty, who found the issues
for the Lilly company and kellog ap-
pealed,
On May /. l9OOn the Lilly company
claiming to be the owner OF the Lazy OF
the West lode mining claim, with which
the boundary line OF the Ralph claim
conhicted, brought suit against Ralph
NJ. kellogg The trial court gave the
Lilly a portion OF the land claimed by
the Ralph, which was not claimed by
the Lilly company in Its complaint the
appellate court holds that this was a
reversible error The mistake says the
court, was not so much in the direction
Of the easterly line Of the Lilly as IN
taking for the initial point OF the line
not the corner conceded by the parties
TO the suit to be the northeast corner,
but another point which neither party
claimed to be the corner and this mis-
take can be easily corrected on re-
hearing OF the case TO which end the
lower courts decree Is set aside and
the case relnanded,
BABCoCKs MAY KEEP HOME
The decision OF Judge Hart OF the
First district court IL affirmed In an
opinion written by Justice Bartch In
the 1'otec Ranch company vs. William
Babcock interviewer, case.
At the trial the jury decided the case
IN favor OF the defendants and plain
tiff company appealed.
Louisa Babcock was formerly a pln-
raj wife OF Chester Loveland, who came
into possession OF the slxty-four acres
OF land In dispute In 1875 or rs and ar
forwards gave Il to her, whore she has
lived farming the land for the benefit
OF herself and her children for more
than twenty-five years. In 1889 she
married Babcock, and he went to live
with his wife on the farm. From the
evidence II appeared that the land IN
controversy was embraced within the
grant OF Congress to the Central Pacl-
fs Railroad company; that on Septem
Der s, 1896, the railroad company re-
ceived patent for IL, and on May a.
1887 conveyed II to the palntiff The
interviewer In her complaint
claimed that the land In controversy
was excepted from the grant to the
Central Pacific Railroad company and
set up the statute of limitations In ba'
of the action. The supreme court holds
that she Is entitled by adverse posses
sion 10 hold the farm and the crops
raised thereon against the plaintiff, and
that she has absolute title to II.
IN FAVOR OF BREWING co.
Judge Bartch writes an opinion re.
yerslng the trial court In the case OF
Salt Lake City Brewing company APP
pellant vs.. William Hawke and william
Andrews, co-partners under the firm
name OF Hawke e. Andrews which wal
tried before Judge Marioneaux.
The action was brought 10 recover
$500 which was bOrrOwe ty Hawk
from the brewing company on Angus
Is, 1900 Hawke and Andrews went In
TO the saloon business at Frisco OF
! June 70, 1900 The lower court helC
that both the defendants We're liabli
for certain goods ordered but that An
drews was not liable for the none,
| loaned TO Hawke.
The supreme court In reversing thil
| decision, holds that Hawke obtained III
| money for the use Of the firm havins
| authority to do so. and TO bind tn
firm within the scope Of Legitimate bu
| sness.
The case is, therefore, remanded will
directions to the court below TO gran
new trial as to the portion of tn
, Judgment referring to he loan Cost
| are to be taxed TO the respondents.