The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1910-07-18
A PUMP GUN,
LOVE AND
LAW


art against John Douglass Peterson.
a suit to settle a question OF equity
IN an alleged co-partnership between
tne plaintiffs deceased husband and
the defendant in the ownership of
patent on valuable shotgun, upon
-"hion a hevy royalty Is now being
paid by the Remington Arms com
pany, Judge Howell has rendered a
deolslon in which he says
IL Is ordered. therefore, that in ao.
cordance with the prayer of the plain.
uus complaint, the defendant be re-.
CURED TO account 10 her for all royaI.
Ties received from the Remington
Arms company on account Of the sale
OF what Is known as the Remington
pump gun"
There Is little romance connected
win the case, IL appearing In court
tnat the plaintiff and defendant were
desperately In love with each otner
at one time. and that because OF this
love there had been considerable bus
mess le1ity exhibited on the part q,
the two, and that il was rot an ensy
matter 20 determine just what was
the contract between plaintiffs for
mer husband and the defendant and
between the two parties TO the action.
The court, In making q summary Of
this phase OF the question. SAYS in
part.
1T is finally ingeniously argued by
counsel that defendant should be held
10 his agreement because It was
simply the extrayagant promise Of a
lover To his sweetheart and not In
any sense a business arrangement. II
appears from the numerous and
lengthy epistles introduced in evi-
dcnco as having passed between the
parties to this suit that, after Ben.
netts death and prior 10 plaintiffs
remarriage to her present husband. a
violent love. apparently mutually re-
ciprocated. took possession OF both
plaintiff and defendant No matter
With what seriousness the pnllosoph-
er might ponder over the snuous,
uneven and unhappy course of this
love story, OF no matter with what
delight the psychologist might seek
10 unravel the tangled strains of II.
nor how it could be woven BY tho
novelist into a romance, am. OF
course. only concerned with its legal
phases, Fortunately the courts are
not often called upon to enforce the
promises which are said 10 be made
between lovers. The fond swaip's
hyperbolical desire TO lay the wealth
of the world at his loved ones feet
Is meat for the poet and the novelist,
NOT the prosaic judge. Occasionally.
however. unwillInEly the courts are
nevertheless compelled to draw the
line between what Is simply loves
fantasy and cold. hard business be.
tween people in love, and fortunately
the task Is not difficult, because in
the crucible of common sense il ia
easy TO separate them, IT. for in
stance, tho loyesick youth, during a
spasm Of delirium, promises the equal.
ly lovesiok maiden that he will give
her the silvery moon for a brooch TO
embellish her lily white throat, OF the
lady fair In a moment OF ecstasy
swenrs she will pluck from the sky
a shining diamond TO bedazzle her
lovers manly hand or shirt bosom
court OF equity would not seek TO en-
force either promise. nor would
court Of law give damages for the
failure to perform either. But IL
lover or a beloved happen to own
some property or other valuable
right and tho other promises to give
a sum OF money In exchange for II,
then that promise can Dc enforced in
a court OF Justice. in the absence of
fraud or duress (Which love, in and
OF Itself, cannot be legally consider
ed, and 1t matters not that in max
ing the bargain the lover or beloved
agrees TO give q great
dal more because the transaction vas
looked at tbrought the eyes of love,
or that It was not looked at at all,
the parties being, as tradition has Il.
blinded by love.
$50 here, it may be, that II the de-
fendant had not been In love with the
plaintiff he would have agreed 10
treat her exactly as he would have
treated her husband had he lived
(queer promise that and give her
the same amount of money and royal
ties. had he not been In love with
her but she had an interest In her
deceased husbands contract and to
benefit himself by making the con-
tract with the Remington Arms Co..
he had to obtain her release OF that
interest. and when in order TO OBJ
tain that release he promised TO give
her $500 and one-fourth of thirty
five cents on every gun manufactured,
he must live up to his contract.
"It NAV be. too, that he was not
altogether disiHterested In his love
for plaintiff, for he was ever so much
more ardent before he secured the
release than he was Afterwards, but
whether he was madly In love or only
pretending to be, he made a legal
contract with the lady concerning the
gun in question herein, and he must
fulfill It even il he escapes a great
many other promises he made her
and never kept
1T is ordered. therefore. that In
accordance with the prayer of plain
tfTs complaint, the defendant be
required to acoount'to ber for all roy
alties received from the Remington
Arms company on account Of the sale
of what is known as the Remington
pump gum