Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-10-14

Copies of an important decision IN
the case Of the Merchants Protective
association versus s. Jacobson, were
received today at the supreme court
chambers in this city. This case In
wolves an action for debt in Whicn
Judgment was given in the district
court for Jacobson, which the supreme
court reverses. The case camo up from
Gilmore county. Justice Ailshie wrote
the opinion, Justice Sullivan concur
ring. Chief Justice Stewart concur
red separately.
Setting forth the facts Justice Ailshie
says:
This is an appeal from judgment
sustaining demurrer " plaintiH
complaint and dismissing plaintiffs al
legged cause of action. The material
allegations of the complaint are as
follows:
"Appellant is a corporation organ
lied under the laws of the state OF
Utah carrying on general business
of publishing credit ratings of firms
and corporations and furnishing conf
mercial information and adjusting and
collecting delinquent and disputed ac-
counts and claims for an agreed COM
mission or rate of compensation On
about the 3rd day of June. 1908, re-
spondent delivered to appellant for coll
lection a certain claim against Simonds
Brothers of Fort Wayne, Ind. for the
sum Of about $1160. together with
s10S.7O accrued interest, and employed
and instructed the appellant to collect
the same on certain agreed rates or
commission or compensation. Appel
liant began negotiations for the col
lection of the claim, and in order TO
defray the expenses demanded OF the
respondent the sum of $50, which re-
spondent paid. Appellant thereupon
continued negotiations and employed
a firm Of lawyers In Fort Wayne to
assist in the prosecution Of the claim.
These transactions and negotiations
continued until the 10th of July, 1905,
when in view of further costs and ex-
penditures and the probability OF hav-
ing to prosecute an action against the
debtor a modified or new contract was
entered into. This new or modified
contract consisted Of an assignment
by the respondent to the plaintiff of an
undivided one-half interest in the claim
under an agreement that the plaintiff
should bear all further expenses Of the
proceedings and furnish any bonds that
might be necessary and that after the
claim was finally adjusted or collected
the appellant would return to respond
ent the sum Of $50 which had already
been paid by respondent to appellant
toward defraying costs and expenses
The appellant proceeded with its ne
gotiations but without success. and
thereafter and on or about the 7th day
of June. 1907. and while the plaintiff,
I'M IN cnlloot md
adjust the claim, the respondent with.
out notice to appellant entered into al
agreement with the debtor. Simond'
Brothers, whereby the claim was pait
directly to respondent, and Simond.
Brothers were released and discharged
from further liability. The appellant
thereupon made demand on responder
for one-half the sum collected, les.
the sum Of $50, which had been ad
vanced for costs. and upon refusal b,
respondent to pay commenced this &C
ton. Respondent demurred to thu
complaint, and the demurrer was sus
tanned, on the ground that the contrac
was in violation of the common Law
doctrine Of champerty and maintenance
which rule Of law, 1t Is maintained. Il
in force in this state.
"The first question to be determined
on this appeal is. whether the common
law rule of champerty prevails in thi
state. Champerty. which seems to b.
a specie of the ancient law Of main
tenance, consisted in supporting o
maintaining suit for someone else Il
consideration of bargain or agree
ment to have q part OF the litigation
or an agreement from the suit or &C
ton"
Courts Conclusions.
Concluding his opinion Justice All
SHE says in part:
, I'VE doubt very much II any cour
would disagree with the Utah court i
holding such contract contrary :
good morals end sound public policy
and this would be true whether or no
the doctrine OF champerty maintenance
prevails In the Jurisdiction.
"The demurrer in this case shout
AVE been overruled. and the defendan