Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1904-01-12
VICTORY FOR WARD
The U. S. Supreme Court
ReverSeS Arizona Courts
A neager Telegram. Which Conveys
Little Information Regarding the
Decision.

The United States supreme court
Yesterday reversed the courts of the
Third judicial district and the terri
tOrial supreme court in the famous
case of J. NJ. Ward against NJ. H.
Sherman which was begun in the court
of this district in 1897.
This information came to the plain
tiff yesterday in the following tele-
gram from ]. A Hoefler who has
been acting for the plaintiff before the
supreme court of the United States:
Sweeping decision in your favor. Re
versal of two lower courts. Congratu-
!ations."
Judge Kibbey, who has had charge
Of the litigation in Arizona and who
prepared the case for the court CT last
resort, said that until he had more
complete information regarding the d.
cision he did not know what the eff
| feet Of it would be. That is whether the
victory for Mr.. Ward was final or
whether the case would have to be
tried again. The expression, Sweep
| ing decision" would indicate that the
opinion in favor of the plaintiff was so
strong that it would amount to a prac-
teal ending of the case.
The story of this suit has been gone
over frequently by The Republican.
Previous to 1889 Ward was the owner
Of the Sunfower range and several
thousand head of cattle. In that year
he sold it to NJ. II. sherman and Dav-
id Hardenburg for $4,000. They paid
him $4,000 and gave him two notes of
$1,000 secured by I mortgage on the
property.
Some time after the purchase of the
property, that is within three or four
years the cattle business in this ter
rit0ry sank to a very low ebb and the
purchasers desired to give up the
property agreeing TO lose the cash they
he'd invested. Ward insisted on the
carrying out of their agreement though
he did offer TO accept $1,000 for the
notes. There was no settlement and
after the -Hardenburg Cat
tie company ceased TO pay interest on
the notes Ward took possession of the
pr operty. VI
During the occupancy of it by the
purchasers Hardenburg sold cattle to
the amount OF $500 from the range.
Ward demanded a return of that
amount and being unable to effect a
settlement he brought suit against
Sherman and Hardenburg. The lat
ter had moved out OF the country and
did not appear in the litigation.
Though the suit was begun in 1915
service was not scared upon General
Sherman until 1897 and then the case
moved rapidl--.
The defense took the ground that
Ward occupied the position OF Il mort
gage in possession, the mortgage had
not been fOreclosed and the nroDertI,
had all the time been that Of the de-
fendanrs. It WAS therefore asked that
he be compelled to make an accounting
of his trusteeship.
II hanOened that soon after Ward
recovered possession of the property
the cattle business began to boom
again and there was document
sprung upon the plaintiff in court
which was an admission by Ward that
since he had taken possession of the
property he had sold cattle to the
amount Of $4,000. The contention Of
the defense was sustained by the court
and judgment was rendered aga:rst
Ward for the valUe of the cattle he
mad handled There was deducted
from this amount the amount the de-
PENDANTS owed him less the value Of
his services as custodian of the prqp-
.erty. The personal judgment against
him was 1880. The difference the
judgment made to him in property
was about S45. 900.
An aD1eal was taken to the -territor
ial supreme court but WIS dismissed on
the ground that the assignment Of err
fors was faulty. The merits of the
case were not entered into at all.