Show DElAY BARS WIFE S FROM DOWER RIGHT Supreme Court Holds Innocent Purchasers Cannot Be De Deprived Deprived Deprived of Property MRS HILTON LOSES SUIT RIGHT TO REPUDIATE SECOND MARRIAGE NOT DENIED Because she signed a paper agreeing to cancel her marriage with Dr John JohnR JohnB R B Park later married William Hilton Huton and bore him eleven children and never laid claim to any of ot the prop property property erty of Dr Park until after atter his death in 1900 Mrs Annie Flora Hil HU Hilton Hilton I Iton ton Is declared estopped by the su supreme supreme preme reme court of ot Utah from now assert asserting assertIng assertIng ing any claim to the property held by others and purchased before the tho death of or Dr Park This is the effect of ot an option hand handed handed handed ed down by the supreme court yester yesterday yesterday day In the famous celestial marriage marriaga case which attracted widespread at attention attention through the United States Slates and has been the result rosult of ot many suits in inthe Inthe Inthe the of ot Utah Ut for a number of years The opinion was given in the suits of ot Mrs Hilton HUton against Robert W V Sloan and others Adolph M H Anderson and others Fred Stauffer and others hdward Bierer and others Nellie NolUe M Blair and others Including ln in luding Salt Lake City Mae C Beamer and Elizabeth Geoghegan The eight Joined in the one appeal to the supreme court after Judge C Co CoW W Morse of the third district court had Iad ruled that Mrs Hilton 11 11 ton because of the celestial marriage was entitled to the dower rights in II all of ot the prop property property erty owned by Dr Park The supreme court sustains the appeal and reverses Judge Morse holding that Mrs Hilton HUton is estopped from laying claim to the property at this late into date The opinion is written by Justice J B E Fick and is concurred in by Jus tice tico W V M McCarty and Judge T D Lewis of the third district court who sat with the supreme court in the ab a sence of ot Chief Justice D N Marriage Is Valid It is maintained by the tha supreme court that the marriage of ot Miss Armit Armitage Armitage Armitage age to Dr Park though it was for tor eternity was binding upon Dr Park and was really for time and eternity This was the ruling ot of former Chief Justice Bartch in the case of Mrs Hil ton against Roylance and this conten tion is still maintained by the supreme court In a second opinion handed down yesterday carrying with it most of ot the tIe points taken up in the appeal where eight defendants joined forces Justice Frick affirms the Judgment nt of o Judge Morse of the district court In the case of at Mrs Hilton HUton against Gideon Snyder and others In this instance Judge Morse refused to accept the verdicts in other othur cases as final proof of ot the mar marriage marriage of Mrs Hilton HUton and Dr Park and gave Judgment In favor of at Mrs Hilton appealed to the supreme court but Judge Morse is affirmed The history of the celestial mar marriage rl ge of at Mrs Hilton HUton and Dr Park Parle Is Isone Isone Isone I one of ot Intense interest especially be because because I cause of the developments in the last few years when Mrs Hilton HUton had bad laid claim to a widows dower in the estate which would be about Ur Or John R H Park and Annie Flora Armitage came to Salt Lake about the same time late In the Miss Arm became ill lU in 1872 and at her re quest she sho was married for eternity to Dr Park P rk through what was then a custom of the tho Mormon church it was believed that she was on her death bed But B t Miss Armitage grew stronger and was soon well The marriage was dated December 5 6 1872 and on March MarchI 13 19 1873 73 an instrument was drawn and I signed by both of them which nullified the marriage and each was of the opinion that the release was valid The divorce was recorded by the tho Mormon church but was not obtained through the channels of ot the courts Marries William Hilton A short time after the release of ot the tho marr marriage c contract Miss Armitage mar ned ried ed William WilHam Hilton HUton and bore him ten tan children She had totally released Dr Park and this fact tact was shown through her marriage to Hilton with whom she lived as his lawful wedded wife Dr Park continued as a bachelor until his death In 1900 except for tor the celestial marriage m in 1872 1873 Ur Park was for many years President of J f ti the e TT University of Deseret and later late ot of tho the University of Utah this ms he was superintendent of ot public in in Utah and was throughout the state He acquired a larg amount of ot property near Brigham and State streets and an also On First avenue but much of this was disposed of short ly before his death In none of or th the deeds was the name of ot Mrs Mra Hilton men I and there was no Intimation that tha she had any claim upon tho the property Following the death of ot Dr Park Mrs Hilton filed suits In which she sho claimed to be his widow through the celestial marriage when she was thought to be dying This wag wa taken to the supreme court where It was held that she was the legal wife of Dr Park after the mar marriage marriage marriage and that this relation was nOL noi of nf by the agreement of the two to dissolve the relation Mrs Hilton was successful In the suits against the Dr Park estate and obtained several thou thousands sands sandi sanI R of dollars through the ruling that she continued to be the wife of Dr Park These suits however were for tor the prop property property property erty which was held by Dr Park at the time of his death and left In the estate In each of these thele suits It was contended she had a dower right Claim Is lB Too Late Then the tho actions were Instituted against others who had bought property from Dr Park before his death These are the suits which were settled by the opinion of the supreme court yesterday The court holds that the fact that Mrs Hil In Hilton Inton I Iton ton did not make any claim to being the wife of Dr Park that she lived with another mat mar as ag his wife and that she shedid shedId shedid did not Interfere with any of ot the sales of property came caine up at this date as a abar abar abar bar to her claim on any of the property prot It Is held that it would be most unfair to th tho present owners of the property to despoil them of their full Interest be because because because I cause they had purchased the land in good faith faJth and had held It for tor years without a question being raised as to the clear clearness clearness clearness ness of ot the title This is held to be the case in each in instance stance that the purchaser of the land I did dl not know of ot tho the claim chUm of Mrs Hil HI Hilton ton with the exception of Mrs Geoghe Geoghegan gan It was shown that Mrs Geoghegan was informed of the claim of Mrs Hil Hll Hilton Hiton ton before the purchase of ot a piece of property but the fact was brought out that the owner at that time Ume had pur purchased purchased chased from Dr Park and had not known of ot the interest of the wife Therefore this was included with the tho ruling In the theother theother theother other instances The supreme court does not deny the right of Mrs Hilton HUton to renounce the mar marriage marriage marriage to Hilton and claim to be the wife bf of t Dr Park even though she bore Hil HI Hilton Hilton HIton ton eleven cleven children It is held however that these facts f and nd her failure to sign any deed as the wife of Dr Park comes out at this time as a bar to her claim claiming claimIng ing any of ot the land and forever her herThe herTh The Th supreme court orders that the find finding fIndIng finding ing of ot Judge Morse be reversed and that thata a new set of findings of ot fact and con conclusions conclusions of law bo be written which con conform conform conform form to the ruling of ot the highest court and declare the estoppel Stewart ft f Stewart were attorneys for forthe forthe the defendants |