The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-07-09
SUPREME COURT
SHOWS DIVISION
Gives Majority and Minority Opinion
on Lagoon Railroad Case.
BARTCH is FOR BAMBERGER
w. N. ANDERSON is DEFENDANT
IN DIVORCE SUIT.

Majority and minority opinions. the
first reversing and the latter sustaining
the finding of the lower court in the
case of the Utah Savings & Trust COM
panS, administra tor with will annexed
of the estate of James F. Woodman, de-
ceased, appellant, against Simon Bam-
berger, respondent were handed down
by the justices of the supreme court
yesterday The majority opinion re-
versing the judgment of the lower court
and remanding the case for retrial was
written by Justice McCarty and was
cOncurred in by Justice Straup. while
the minority and dissenting opinion was
by Chief Justice Bartch.
The plaintiff. as administrator of the
estate of James F. Woodman, deceased.
brought an action i'm the district court
to recover 81, 5O4.17 and interest alleged
to be due and unpaid on a promissory
note bearing date of June 80, 1896, and
payable ninety days after date, which
was delivered by the defendant, Simon
Bamberger, to James F. Woodman.
Nj. BAN berger denied owing the
amount claimed, or any other amount,
TO James T. Woodman on June 80, 1895,
or on any other date. He said he and
WOOdman had engaged in d number of
Joint business transactions, and that on
or about June 90, 1896, be gave Wood
man q promissOry note, the same set
out in the complaint. but that the note
was not intended by either of the par
ties as an absolute, unconditional
promise to pay, but was given for the
faithful performance of other business
transactions then pending between the
two.
Furthermore Mr.. Bamberger alleged
that the note and interest were paid
long prior TO July 10, 1902.
Majority Gives Reversal.
Judop,a,,+ ,--oo 49, 5zs.e7 - A. ,z..--.
court for the defendant The majority
opinion of the supreme court reverses
the finding of the lower court and re-
mandS the case for retrial. This opinion
says that the findings of the lower
court. which holds that Bamberger paid
or caused to be paid the obligation re-
ferred to is not only unsupported by the
evidence, but is in fact contrary to the
testimony, and hence is erroneous.
In his dissenting opinion Chief Jus
tice Bartch saws that MesSrs. Bam-
berger and Woodman were jointly in
terested in a railroad project that be-
came insolvent and was put into the
hands of a receiver September "a 1896
October 1, 1896, they entered into an
agreement whereby Mr.. Woodman
agreed to cancel and deliver to Mr..
Bamberger the note sued on in plain
hold WOodman free and harmless from
any and all liability by reason of hav-
ing assigned this note to the National
Bank of the Republic together with
certain cOndemnat ton bonds. and would
pay the note and condemnation bonds.
Bartch Takes Other View.
Chief Justice Bartch also found that
pursuant to this agreement Mr.. Bam-
berger caused the note to be paid to the
National Bank of the Republic OH or
about September p. 1897, by a corpora
ton known as the Salt Lake & ogden
Railway company, which Mr.. Bamber-
ger caused TO be organized for the pur-
pose of acquiring title to the property
then owned by the Salt Lake q Hot
Springs Railway company, and there
after, December f. 1897, caused all of
the condemnation bonds to be paid by
the Salt Lake & Ogden Railway com
pauy.
In regard to these payments spoken
Of by Chief Justice Bartch. the ma
Jority opinion contends that they were
made by order of court after the rail-
way company became insolvent. and
that Mr. Bamberger is therefore not en-
titled to credit for them.