Show Un hazeldine zeldine vs ward howind andl In dl get Is lien hi or alib 11 ft if I 1 air cf I 1 1 I holi leoin li oin lla 1 laela me against john it 1 el t jil at lite 1 lie halit filed by nin inns faze allgee that lit in Sep telli ter lit ti tiit it pi ol of it 11 velt aIll piece of prop artty tv in ill salt lake nit binl 1 that tit in D the tine year t alic lie plaintiff unil 1 I I 1 entered into an all agree ident ly by little tile plaintiff ills piglet of Imich nse to ll urd und and agreed to rondald in possession of tin lit premises prem isem and improve them aliat as for tit tho proposed inniss john IS 11 llo wilid wat wai to convey it one half itil in tile pir deity to the hie plaintiff further it II is alleged ull ard liy by that agin d to deed the remaining iema ining balf of tile the to him on c that lie paid half of of 1 alio llio ho dilce iha dat 1 houf ou g flit 11 I 1 land and tile the plaintiff averit to work woric to improve tile tho property pi but it Is ill liy ley lial eldino that ta the defendant to fen lant utterly failed to ills part jart of the lio contract find and that a deed to ice pail PAP L nf let tile propel ty has never hoell been glien n by howard to the plain to ills his damage clarriage in the sum of if attorney A L schroeder appeared ter for the plaintiff plain tin and frank aleice a 7 AL AI liali nilton and george J larth tor for tile the defendant |