The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-07
NOTED HAGENBARTH|
CASE IS REVERSE
Justice Frick, Quoting iSeriI
ture, Says That Sale of Op-'
lion Was Conditional.
ACTION Is SENT BACK
FOR ANOTHER TRIA
Means Saving to Hagenbarth
Quarter of Million; Other
Opinions.

Two reversals aud one affirmation IN
| judgments Of lower courts was the rexrC
ord Of She supreme court Thursday ~
opinions handed down. All three opi,
ions were written bv Justice Frick ani1
concurrcd in by Cbiel Justice Strau.
! and Justice McCarty. ~
The most important opinion hande
! down. bv reason OF The amount iuvolvet
! II for no other cause. was that in IN
! cas-" Of Joseph T.. Cainc aud Max .J,,,S>>
handel against +. j. lIagonbarth, al
! Pcjlaut. The supreme cuuii revcrsc u
! the Judgment of Judge Lewis of N !.
| district court. awarding the plaintiff 4,
S2JuOUO as the purchase price OF ~
| option on the Ludwig mine IN Ncvadts
The ease. however. is remanded Ia M
lower court with instructions To prsrr
= new trial. so thar thc parties wi
have another opportunity to 6ght 1t ours,
III court. II
Game and .iun2h8ndc secured an ot.
| tl0u on the Ludwig mine Tor 3 .OOO. .00sr
aud made = payment Of 5000 on II
The remainder Of the purchase pritr
! was payable in mStallmcnis coverippf fJ
period Of eight months. On Februarf
| !, 1907. they sold inc option TO HaacrcI
bGrth Cor 100000. of which amorlnt,
$4,000 was paid down and the rcmairf.
der WAS 10 bc paid upon the taking ~ !
of the option. tS
Refused to Take Up Option. &
Hagcubarth after making tho pas3,
mcut, - stated. had an cxaminatio,.
made OF The luiuc and refused to taki
up MS option or TO pay the balance d
the 100000 10 Game and .Junghandor
Suit was then filed against him "a a
cover that amount. There were N
csses tled. aud Judge Lewis hold Id.
the contract between Game and .lunt
handel and Hagenbarih was for ~.
! straight and unconditional sale of fn'
option, and he rendered Judgment fr
favor Of Cainr and Iungdandel "a
100000 aud interest, which brmehl
the amount up 10 500 ,00D. R
The supreme court holds that tn
sale of the option was conditional an
that Hagcnharib was not bound 10 pSl.
the remainder of the purchase prinl
agreed upon, unless he took mp the On
ton. Justice Frick, in his opiniota
quotes u Sclipturai passage which, ~
declares, Judge Lewis evidently ovcf
looked in rendering the Judgment. Tn
passage rs as follows; IN
- Not OF the letter but Of tie spiFii.
for the letter ki.lcth, but the spirit gin.
eth light - 4
The whole matter hinged on the cor
siruction given the agreement bctweG,
The parties 10 the transaction aud tn
supreme court holds that II was 3 con,
ditioual sale Of ihe option which Iaceng
barth was not bound 10 pay for. unle*r
he took up the option The matter gof
back TO tho lower court for now trid
''Ropc Survey Upheld 4
An old-timc 'rope survey. - made u
parties owning adjoining property, va
upheld by the supreme court N d.
pate as to thc boundary limo betwceI,
the property Of litigants The case ~
question is that of John Rydalch. apl
pellsnt, against G. LcRoy Anderson, adh
ministrator of the estate of G.. l.. 40
derson. The property in dispute cor
sists Of $3.50 acres OF land in Tooch
| county. II
The evidence showed that in 1888
the then owners Of the two adioinint.
tracts Of land made rope survey' o.
tho same and decided on the houndar1T
line between tnc two tracts. They thc(.
this fence has remained for tue paH.
forty years. When government survc
of the land was made years later, -
was claimed by Rvdalch that Andersoi
had over thirtvCight acres OF his la10S
! and he brought suil 60 quiet title 4
H. The lower court upheld tho 'rori7
| survey 9ud the boundary hue agrec(
upon between the original owners. who,
line was marked by fence, held did
| Anderson had held adverse possessicf
of the land sufficient length of tiin's
10 secure title 10 II. Ie
This judgment Is upheld hv the sV.
Urcme cOurt and the lower court IS az
firncd. II.
Brandt Case Reversed. =
The judgement Of the lower court wyl
reversed IN The case Of state of utais
eN rel Joseph Brandt, appellant, agaiDN-
Inc silver King Consolidated Minink'
company. and G.. W Browning. its sfof
reciary. Brandt. who ) . Stockholders 4
asked for a writ of mandate 70 CON
pei the officers of the company ia pei
| init his expert to examine the 0ooHr
! Of tho company Ia ascertain rs hnancl4 4
condition and the names OF itS stocH
| holders The lower court issued fW
writ, which gave Brandl the priyilees
Of examining the books. except ~ IA
far a. the examination would disclor
| the names Of tho stockholders. ~
| Brandt proceeded 10 make an eKamin
| alton oC the books and came across n
/ voucher for Sli.700, which was VII. u
| held from him for tho reason tna'
would disclose the names of some oi tW
| stockholders He then applied 70 tits,
court for a modification OF INC VIII n
! permit him 20 examine that Voucne| !,
! The court refused his request. H.
The supreme court holds that Wn
! lower court erred in not permf iH
| Brandt to ascertain from tho books ,I 4
names Of The stockholders, and noi"
! that tho writ Of mandate should ny
! hcca unconditional aud uulimited- 20
| directs the lower court TO 80 modify fNs
| writ.