| Show TE AMD Maggie Smith Huer Appellant vs Charles Smith et aly The other opinion was in the case of Maggie Smith mouser appellant vs Charles Smith et al suit tt quiet title Smih a The opinion written by Justice MIner and concurred in by Chief Justice Bartch and Justice Baskin affirmed Bartci the judgment of the trial court In this case the defendant Charles Smith conveyed a certain tract of land in plat E Salt Lake City survey to Joseph n Morgan for a consderaton of 3000 and afterwards Morgan mortgaged mort-gaged the premise to August IV Cirl son for 2000 At a subsequent date on June 4 1890 the plaintiff and al pelant brought suit against Smith for a divorce and on Dec 23 1892 a decree of divorce was entered in her favor Then the plaintiff Who had married one C A Housel applied to the court for an order subjecting the property in I question to her claim for alimony and voiding the title in Morgan and Cal son The opinion concludes that defendants defend-ants Morgan and Carlson were strng ers to the proceeding ubder which the decree of divorcewas obtained This property was wrongful and illegally decreed to belong to another arty decree the owners being made parties having oDoortu to the action or any acton nity to be heard in court to defend the title thereto After their rights to tel property were made known to the court no proceedings were taken as provided by statute to make either Morgan or Carlsol parties so that the title to the land could be legally determined deter-mined The defendants Morgan and Carlson alleged in theIr answer and the roofs show that the were not parties to the proceedings whereIn Maggie SmIth was plaintIff and Charles Smith was defendant in whIch a decree was rendered declaring said deed from Smith to Morgan fraudulent and voId On the face of the record as shown I the opinion states the decree in the I case of Smith vs Smith is wholly a rd absolutely void and was rendered without I with-out jurisdiction over the persons or property of sad Morgan and Carlson The record presents a case where the judgment is shown to be absolutely I void and rendered against persons who were not before the court and over whom the court had no jurisdiction Courts have no right to dispose of and adjudicate upon the property rights of persons who arenot parties to the caSe and who are total strangers to the record rec-ord The findings of fact and the decree are sustained by the evidence and no reversible error Is found in the records The fn lngs and judgment of the district dis-trict court are affirmed with costs 4 G I |
