The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-04-20
DELAY BARS WIFE
FROM DOVER RIGHT
Supreme Court Holds innocent
Purchasers Cannot Be De-
prived of Property.
MRS. HILTON LOSES SUIT
RIGHT TO REPUDIATE SECOND
MARRIAGE NOT DENIED.

| r. Park, later married William Hilton
and bore him eleven children and
never laid claim to any of the prop
erty OF DR.. Park until after his death
in 1900. Mrs. Annie Flora Armitage Hill
ton is declared estopped by the SUI
preme court of Utah from now assert
ing any claim to the property held by
others and purchased before the death
of DR.. Park.
ed down by the supreme court yester-
day in the famous celestial marriage
case which attracted widespread at
tention through the United States and
has been the result OF many suits in
the courts Of Utah for a number of
years. The opinion was given in the
suits or Mrs. Hilton against Robert w.
Sloan and others, Adolph NJ. Anderson
and others, Fred Stauffer and others,
EDWARD Bierer and others, Nellie NJ.
Blair and others. including Salt Lake
city, Mae G. Beamer and Elizabeth
Geoghegan.
The eight joined in the one appeal
TO the supreme court, after Judge G.
w. Morse Of the third district court
Rad ruled that Mrs. Hilton, because of
the celestial marriage, was entitled
to the dover rights in all of the prop
erty owned by DR.. Park. The supreme
Judge Morse. holding that Mrs. Hilton
Is estopped from laying claim to the
property at this late date.
The opinion is written by Justice J.
T. Felck, and is concurred in by JUS
tice W. NJ. McCarty and Judge T. D.
Lewis of the third district court, who
sat with the supreme court in the alb
sence or Chief Justice d. n. Straup.
Marriage is Valid.
1t is maintained by the supreme
court that the marriage of Miss Armit-
age 10 DR.. Park, though 1t was for
eternity, was binding upon DR.. Park
and was really for time and eternity.
This was the ruling of former Chief
Justice Bartch in the case of Mrs Hill
ton against Roylance and this oonten-
non is still maintained by the supreme
court
In a second opinion handed down
yesterday, carrying with IL most of the
points taken up in the appeal where
eight defendants Joined forces, Justice
frlck aftirns the Judgment of Judge
Morse OF the district court in the case
OF mrs. Hilton against Gideon Snyder
ana others In this instance Judge
Morse refused 10 accept the verdicts in |
other cases as final proof of the mar
rage OF Mrs. Hilton and DR.. Park and
gave Judgment in favor OF Synder
mrs, Hilton appealed 10 the supreme |
court. but Judge Morse is affirmed
The history of the celestial" mar
riage OF Mrs. Hilton and Dr. Park is /
one or intense interest, especially be- |
cause OF the developments in the last |
Few years, when Mrs. Hilton had laid /
claim to a widows dover in the estate, |
which would be about $4,000.
Or. John X. Park and Annie Flora /
Armitage came to Salt Lake about the 1
same time, late in the SOS. Miss Arm |
itage became i'll in 1872 and at her re- |
quest she was married ''for eternity |
10 Dr. Park, through what was then /
a custom of the Mormon church. If |
was was Oeileyed that she was on her death /
pe9' But Miss Armitage grew stronger
ana was soon well. The marriage was
lated December 8. 1872, and on March
~ 1873, an instrument was drawn and |
signed by both Of them which nullified
me marriage and each was of the
opinion that the release was valid The
divorce was recorded by the Mormon
church, but was not obtained through
me channels of the courts
Marries William Hilton.
A short time after the release of tho
marriage contract, Miss Arrnftage mar
led William Hilton and bore him ten |
children. She had totally released mr.
'ark, and this fact was shown through |
ieF marriage TO Hilton, with whom she
lVed as his lawful welded wife. DR.
ark continued as a bachelor until his
ieath IN 1900, except for the celestial |
marriage in 1879.
Dr: Park was for many years president
= ne University OF Deseret, and later
-
MS, he was superintendent of public in
tructlOn in Utah and was prominent
throughout the state. He acquired a largs
mount or property near Brigham and
'late streets and also on First avenue,
ut much OF this was disposed of short
before his death. In none of the
eedE was the name OF Mrs Hilton mem
Toned, and there was no intimation that
ne had any claim upon the property.
Following the death OF Dr. Park Mrs |
Hilton filed suits In which she claimed |
D De his widow, through the celestial
marriage when she was thought to be |
wing. This was taken to the supreme |
ourt where II was held that she was ,
ne legal wife Of DR.. Park after the mar
iage, and that this relation was noI af- |
ected by the agreement OF the two to
issOlve the relation Mrs. Hilton was !
lceessful in the suits against the DR. !,
ARK estate and obtained several thou !
ands Of dollars through the ruling that
ne continued to be the wife of DR.. Park
hese suits, however, were for the DrOp-
-ty which was held by Dr. Park at the
me Of his death and left in the estate
! each Of these suits IL was cOntended
lie had a dover right.
Claim is Too Late.
Then the actions were instituted against 4
hers who had bought property from Dr. .
ark before his death. These are the =
Its which were settled by the opinion :
the supreme court yesterday. The =
urt holds that the fact that Mrs. Hill =
n did not make any claim to being the y
Ife of DR.. Park; that she lived with ,
lOther mar as his wife, and that she =
d not interfere with any Of the sales :,
property, came up at this date as a :
T to her claim on any Of the property. =
is held that 1t would be most unfair a
the present owners of the property y
despoil them of their full interest, be- =
use they had purchased the land in good
ith and had held ii for years without :
question being raised as to the clear q
SIS of the title. ii
This is held to be the case in each in
lnce-that the purchaser of the land 4
not know OF the claim of Mrs. Hill
l-With the exception Of Mrs. Geoghe-
n. 1t was shown that Mrs. Geoghegan s
Is informed Of the claim of Mrs. Hill
\ before the purchase Of a piece of
operty, but the fact was brought out IS
at the owner at that time had pur- p
ased from DR.. Park and had not known 3
the interest of the wife. Therefore, q
Is was included with the ruling in the Z
her instances. IL
rhe supreme court does not deny the B
int of Mrs. Hilton to renounce the mar 2
ge to Hilton and claim to be the wife 1
DR.. Park, even though She bore Hill
a eleven children. 1t is held, however,
at these facts anG her failure to sign 3
y deed as the wife of DR. Park, comes
at this time as q bar to her claim 4
: any OF the land and forever estops