Show IN THE SUPREME COURT Two Opinions Handed Down by That Th Body Yesterday In tan case of Eliza Warren and nd d others appellants against Theodore Th Robison and others respondents in including I eluding the Citizens bank of Ogden the supreme court yesterday handle handE hand 4 down an opinion affirming the decision of or the lower court cd rt except as to one o a othe athe othe the defendants Charles M Id and the th case was reversed as to him 11 ri and remanded to the trial court with Instructions to o enter judgment in his h s favor costs The Th opinion wiz was w J 1 written by District Judge concurred conc rr ln by Justices BaSkin arid ad I Th Thi action w wis s begun on behalf benal tr tit the th plaintiffs as stockholders of o tiC Citizens bank of Ogden defendant and stockholders and others similarly situated who might hereafter join against the defendant for an account accounting accounting ing and for damages alleged to have been occasioned by reason of negligence gence in the management of the bank by its directors and officers The case was tried in the lower court I without a jury and a nonsuit granted gra ted from which the plaintiffs appealed and ald the court yesterday affirmed the judgment nonsuit with refer refe reference ref enoe ence to defendants Maguire Maguiro Beeman Beema Perkins Armstrong Armstron and the Citizens bank but the judgment was reversed with reference to defendants Brough Spencer Spener r Murphy Kuhn Wells Schramm and Corey The action was begun Sept II 11 1897 and a judgment of nonsuit was wasP rendered April 26 1899 1892 It was again Sept 10 1900 by Judge Mc McCarty McC I Carty C and a judgment rendered May 27 21 2 1901 An opinion was also handed down by the supreme court in the case of Anna 1 respondent against the Salt San Lake City Railroad company appel appellant appellant lant sustaining the decision of the th lower l court The action was begun to recover damages for personal p in injuries Injuries injuries juries claimed to have been sustained by the tho plaintiff through the th negligence of o the defendant company It was al aI alleged alleged that while the plaintiff was a passenger on nn one of the cars of a tive te de tie defendant defendant the car was prematurely 1 started throwing the plaintiff pI violent violently J ly against the door of Df the car causing her to sustain permanent Injuries In Inthe Inthe Inthe the trial in the lower court a judg judgment judgment judgment ment of was rendered in favor of the plaintiff together with the tile theof of the action The judgment was 31 a finned by the supreme court in its deli de 1 cislon yesterday |