Show BROKER RECOVERS F toss LOSS ON STOCKS S- S Supreme Court Affirms Decision Decision T ion of Moyer Case I I JUDGMENT NOT ENTERED 1 u to 10 Sot Set I on Oil Ground of ur Xo Xu c Jurisdiction Li Is O The Tue supreme court handed down a 1 eM r ay In fl the thO case of or Jo Jos- Jos against George W. W l Moyer r r. r appellant the decision deck deck- ton ion of oC the tho lower I court Which found COlin for tho hi plaintiff The Tho action was v. v ought brought originally to recover r the 1 sum of ot 7 alleged to tu 1 be lie du due on l account nt of ot a dc deal al In mining stocks tuck 1 W bt between cf th the parties T rho plaintiff who Is IR a mining broker brok brok- er or cr ntH anti and the defendant entered into t I nn an agreement in March 1 1901 whereby whereby where where- by the plaintiff purchased e mining 5 stock principally Lower Mammoth l for lor the lie defendant it was vas a agreed that the Hw plaintiff should purchase th the stuck stock and hold it in his Ms possession clon U OS 4 t security for the payment nt of the purchaSe pur pur- I chaSe price the tho defendant making 1 lal payments from fron tune to 11 tune time 1 i rite Tho plaintiff purchased ed stock to tin the S alu value of ot Gnon and aini the paid on it altogether the tho sum Rum o of If 2 2 GOO SOO- He lie t u- u oa cay the balance on the Uio ground that the tho plaintiff ha had the tho value and anti condition condi Ilion I- I lion tion of ot tho tIFe stock f and thereby caused S 'S defendant the Jo loss Joss s of JC considerable S. S x l HC of ur Sd Stud Stock cl r i Tho plaintiff thereupon sold the tho 1 yeI re- re t I rr of or tho tIit stock sock In n his possession slon on 1111 I the hc upon market u and 1 received u 4 t I to In 0 pay juay I the h c ba balance Ia t t r flit hO hn the tho price pr l except the th J ut for rOI the tho of or Hum HO recovery I 5 Alay IQ t 2 h hur lu u. u T r J t ri Hut l 10 j tl il Tl J JU U j dI tie J It l In 1 I On UI Juno June JG 6 1 15 the disS dis- dis S that the tho judgment was wn not notS S entered nt and Lu to th the tho district I l court UIt and an x u-x parte 1 order older 1 directing tl the th clerk to Lu II make nake th the tho entry The Tho moved d vacate am and andRet tl mO to lO acte Ret pet et a aside the thc judgment ju on the tho ground rl that the tho court had hac no jurisdiction t tenter to enter Judgment nt at so late lato a date dale 1 On appeal the appellant nant contended ed S that the tho court erred In not compelling c time the plaintiff to elect upon which of the I Iwo 1 counts in hl his complaint h ho he proposed pro pro- po posed to togo go to trial nn and l also that thal th the tw S. S court erred emred In ordering Limo tho tw ju judgment I S. S S S entered nt pro tune tuno tun over the objection objectionS S of or the defendant er S t Judgment Is Jn In n the opinion of the S court cut written n by Justice 1 McCarly and andS S t concurred In by Chief Justice Bartch S t 5 I i and District Judge A Armstrong It I Is IsS S t r hel held t that hat the weight of or authorities t S supported the action of the trial court cOUIL S While there then leri was wa considerable conflict In the evidence ence In the case the suf su- su f n hol holds that the determined doS de do- t In promo me court s Jury e- e S S time the fa facts L In accordance with S ohe evidence submitted an and therefore S. S S the finding should not be disturbed The Time Judgment of the lower court i Is t therefore with costs |