OCR Text |
Show UTAHHS FIGURE IN SUIT OVER : IDAHO PROJECT I Judge Henderson and Gem i State Citizen Plaintiff in Big Case PROJECT ON BIG LOST RIVER IS INVOLVED Utah Construction Company and Others Defendants: Possession Attacked CSpeclal Dispatch, i BOISE. Ida.. Feb. 1. The Utah I Construction company's possession of ih Big Ixist River Irrigation project In Idaho Is attacked in a suit filed j here by James E. Clinton of Boise and H. H Henderson of Ogden against I I the Utah Construction company, the CnlOn Portland etiient company. Co-, Co-, rev Bros. Construction company W. j W. Corey. W. E. Corey, C. O. Corey) and A. T. Corey The complaint in substance charges' 1 that the ("tab Construction company j I unlawfully obtained possession of h. project, upon which $1,600,000 had: heen spent, by the expenditure of $35,-000. $35,-000. I Clinton I and Henderson ask the Sixth district court of Idaho. In which the action Is filed, to decree I that Hi,. Master's deed under Which th.' company holds the project is a. mortgage and that the company be re-'luir.-ii to release the mortgage and re- j convey the properly of the plaintiff.; and others who are represented as j having an Interest In the project. DISTORT OF LITIGATION. . The history or the litigation Is fcetl forth in more than thirty pages of! typewritten copy. This complaint recites that on De comber JT. 1912. the United States I district court In Idaho entered a final decree In the case of Corey liros. j Construction company, with the I'ulo.i Portland Cement company as intervener. inter-vener. I'nil. r .this decree the construction con-struction company obtained u judgment judg-ment , in the sum of S601i.4t4.02, together to-gether with Slfi.ooo attorney's ices I The cement company obtained a Ju Jg-. ment of $i6,o..4.40 and attorneys fees. The court ordered that the proper'.y be sold to satisfy the Judgments awarded. PROPERT1 SOLD. I The property was sold In Ajjv:'., 19H. the ebmplalnt sets forth, and j Ralph K Kong purchased th- prOp-I prOp-I erty. The complaint says Mr Hokg represented Attorney Clement. Attoi -j ney Henderson. Corey Brothers and I the cement company. As trustee for those interests. fV i;o complaint says Mr. Hong paid $"-i $"-i odd to get formal possession Of 'he properly against which they hold judgments. It is alleged that the Utah Construction Con-struction company agreed o purchase j the project for $200,000 and wpuld I settle the cement company's claims. ! In connection with this offer, the com-I com-I plaint says the construction company agreed to advance the 186,000 necessary neces-sary to buy in the property In the event the lompany d. aires to go ahead with it purchase aft -r an examination of Ihe project, tho I company was to pay $165,000 n:oi. . the complaint says. COaSlPANl GETS DEI D. Tho complaint ::lle?es that .c security se-curity for the '!" 000 tiio construction construc-tion company iooa un SSBlgnnicm" o'. the bid made by Mr. Houg and that on July 14. l!H4. th... United Status district court In Idaho confirmed the snle In tho name .if the Utah Construction Con-struction compi iy and the special master executed a dee 1 to the construction con-struction company. The complaint alleges al-leges thai the said deed was accepted accept-ed by the company as security- for the $'1j.0(O advan !, and If the con-Bt con-Bt ruction company later declined to complete Its purchase the doed should bo returned when the construction company was reimbursed for its $J.-000 $J.-000 advance. PAYMEJi l REQUESTED. The complaint charges that in Jir.-uary, Jir.-uary, Hir. the company informed Mr Hoag thai it would not go ahead with Its purchase and requested payment in SO days of tho $36.0o0. Hut the plaintiffs declare tho company did not notify Clinton, Henderson or W, F Corey. In March, tho complaint recite?, u H Wattls. as president of the construction con-struction company, informed Mr. Hoag that the time for the redemption redemp-tion of the project had expired and that the title passes to the Utah Construction Con-struction company. Tho complaint declare that the acts of Ralph E. Iloag and W. It. WatUs "wore done for the purpose und with the intent of cheating and defrauding the plaintiffs and other creditors of said Corey Uros. Construction Con-struction company, and for the pur-poso pur-poso and with the intent of enabling th.- uald Utah Construction company to acquire title to said property under un-der the said agreement without pay-Ing pay-Ing the full consideration." OO |