Show agin ROGERS LOSES gsg ase 1 dec decided ded aga against ins him by il supreme court LIABILITY T TO aa A CLIENT is IS S pleaded that the action was as s 9 ly by the statute of almita and atts sustained ly by the tl ua C ourt court it but it the hi eisber bar trl holds otherwise case int idt tenal TO 11 tile 1 X L drining eased mrs baban Callah nn sues for 9 irac fcc chait orders 1 s court handed down dovin preale ll 11 jn reversing reveral ns the judas ona I 1 yesterday PIED sens 1 of the coul ta bel bikov our in the cases 03 r land appellant 9 adner stevens f ay T IL ito rot ro I 1 t crit and james IL II bacon d appellant vs joseph t r baor 1 bogers noff cri it in the c case ot of stevens vs W allec fc ted by lite plaintiff in ili the court il lie he jow that on november 6 the defendant nho iho Is an at lie t to 10 promissory notes tor for aney idy tour four tin the face ice of 0 the lite notes he be netted aggregated lies regaled 1 KIDO and ropers rogers as sto to bang suit it on such as lie he could otherwise stevens to ae ad li i collect costs and pay the llie necessary uc I for hla his seri algers igar a reasonable fee ser om I 1 it na then alleged that rogers negi needed to collect any ally at 0 the notes arid and at seline of them were returned to S after tiie the statute at 0 limitation III id run nin agal against them As a to lier of the notes it wal claimed hat eshad A near ken returned and sica is 3 judgment against to IT WAS BAR IRED in his ba answer aasved rogers act bitted tint that e notes were lit placed aced in 1 I 1 9 hilinda land for or but denied oil all othe r mate lai tons made anade by lie he furd 11 fl essele that the action was waa bar barred td the statute of it having 0 n filed in ili april isio 1895 upon alinn a trial of u the case before judge jude dla ap pp at al osden ogden in december his onor found that had not bee been ai tul aBd aged arid and hither faither that ills his action is 13 barred liy by the staisie ol of limits wa ins I 1 win ironi t ahe 1 I order overruling ills ollon or a new wall tila stevens stevena ded ed the jhc supreme court now holds that e statute ot of limitations I 1 and not lot iun un a 4 in PAs lili ing ina upon thi th r says mye the facts acts ilent r ial to tin the defense the of at iff limitations set up by 0 deft n dalit in ills hla ansec r NN e inget zara rani as denied under the ibe statute I 1 I 1 b s burden vas upon him to prove un 1111 unless the Main evl evidence dence I 1 c III tile the I proof roof or and it a nut must nu t also j sard the notes in ili I 1 the be hands ot of tile the I 1 fe as 09 held head by be hm him in trust lor for i e plain CUT ord until alavo wd or of the M the statute could not tommee eom menco cic run against the plaintiffs light ot of lion uoti we are of 0 the opinion that ihu the tha cell t quoted aboa above c irom from rogers to evens for or the nou notes 3 constituted a 1 alnut the fill parties bartic s arid and that t plaintiffs awon action va as founded upon and that ihn he had four aars from the ne ie the statute begins to run 1 in 1 I tt h aich tell commence sult ault front from the evidence 1 sipped appeared ill that defendant continued to I 1 hla his obligation to return the enty SIX notes until december 21 4 and that lie he dill did not at that timo linn alce an i demand of his catill tion to 10 return them there was no I 1 lence to e cablish tile of 0 the tha I 1 1 ute lute of while a breach 1 the contract was proven no more in nomani dama eesi could be found evidence Al dence as aa to the solvency ot at I 1 maker of the notes or as aa to the tha lue 1111 bud and as aa a matter of law the court p a so EO hold hod I 1 t was then held that tile llie lower call bourt ra red 4 in both findings and the jud judg 6 nt li li ltv fujii directions to an ant t a 11 new ew trial tile the opinion Is 13 llaca ly by chief J tice zane and juso jusis bartch and 4 minor miner concur INNING caan REVERSED ill n the cast case ot of bacon et a al vs v thorn i it et ILI al the plaintiffs plaintiff 3 sued to quiet r title life to a mo IAO s intel eat ast in the X 1 L maink clam claim I 1 is in tile the west district the de defendants d doil d the material allegations of the iho rland ind and by way ot of a ci cross scon s con com 1 ilni I set up 0 a claim for improvements llie tt property by thornton Thorn tou ion 1 a I trial in lite lower court judge judee trell III d aided that the plaintiffs were L r cullers lit if th alir it aito 0 thirds interest t entered judgment in ill favor ot of tor for implom cements in the in of with int interest erest tile plain I 1 fit la then aled front from an order do dc ing their motion mellon for a new trial and aind in a the portions 0 of the judgment ad 10 l 0 to them I 1 n R the points relied upon 2 eversal the supreme me court says t la Is instated for far the appellant that ile K Is 1 no BO evid ence to 10 support such a dir dinnini din neni ment ifon examination of 0 the record it i st be aled conceded wl ed that fill athla 4 position la Is a correct meet tor for it Is icci kevia upon ahat hat e ideate evidence tile die court h q t I 1 portion or of the decree as th findan 0 md ln to ill the effect that e rev n able Z tile 6 of ill improve n its it A aa 16 A and c counne for tile it iD ad i denial fall to throw w light leht on fill 4 wt rt it Is true rus ill here ere la Is testimony riding illig to shou the thai L work was done I 1 the inc erty by thorn thornton on from 10 ua the t period ot of time lime in question 5 01 a a tunnel el of 1 I about feet ant fiely flo 1110 or sixty tt feet a drift about abot rt i out t 1 feet an ana I 1 a albe r of ft thirty there fil appear to be at b g atle Is lh ekr 1 an y or a if 0 r this L improved c or ab nb lice d the value in e mine to court then points out that at it I 1 acs St athir p or hir t to evl sv show that the abe improve was S the le property and t i holds holda inc linear er court had no or that in t power to bif such was waa tho the case it 15 held in 1 altu conclusion the that A the trial Sn url erred both 11 ln in ac car ding e thornton pen atlOn for t bisi 3 f 1 c e 2 an Us etha the mid L n d in ili judgment a 0 1 lien 1 e 1 0 on n the also B in ar derment dir t rendering it 0 personal ment n I 1 ag a list the 8 as the r a tor clearly r he not liable I 1 ald d g n en t Is kaied accordingly reverster ersted ud a sit nai trial granted ed 1661 rev J lr lil 1 I just ju 1 vT m rote oli the i opinion bud aad incurred a za und judge fp i 1 court X notes cites tho new york lif lite 6 insurance ay iy Y has ha tiled lied com in act action lorl against wilam 11 C Jew jellings lings of el al to collect i it 1 oglory I 1 pole not secured lie ed by On a gaita A cocal receiver or to lo r C the moi take lake cli cleage age tor fr property 16 1 also judge hinline cherry dev devo led teil his attention tha he law and ana mail mollon or docket on oil up to yat erday but made clita very lew few 1 A ryver IL EL native of ls germany I 1 to IU by nerr Y Yeat yesterday erday judge tat altea null bult yam cOm communel menel XI in the united court yi Y by the nl awe call works oki of 0 san francisco anit the lh Consol ld a led wining and biting compary of ogden BO to lecover to bo be ant fit on a duo due em as part pay po 0 bartles contract e into by tile is the any ny d to construct plaint plain liff ld earn com h taft 0 defendant a tramway i ts prope arty 1 ake a suit u tor or divorce callahan ib I b i an ac action tion viii for or u allitif david ct callanan abi ban yester r t t day ao on 0 the grounds of desertion anil and failure 0 il to support cor the par panics E acs ics nera mat 1 I I 1 rl oil c dt d at t port fort sully S D i on juno june 12 2 rm a and mrs C lilllan complains that husband deserted descried her in ili september tern ber estil since alch time he has haa failed e to support hr district COUIL orders judge lilies malo made tile following follow tn orders in the boully of ci the third coult yesterday diaries charlls T no nelson son na 8 annin nelion continued tor for tle term C IL whitey 8 tile the r eacho wic foundry company ordered to pay rent mathin livo live lay laya I 1 Puss lcy sr Ns s r P gud rilend mandson mands cn il judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the iho posses possession salon or oc certain prem premises isea with ia 5 per month as rent from october 2891 A T vi v C S tanney motion to relax costs coeta oven wed G globe lobe savings hasak hank vs st george order appointing I 1 K P F colborn colbom guar dlan nd act for or All arinnie mille climina h its as of september oth J M vs VB western power ind and healing coulp company tiny motion to require 1 D W V james et al to pay over certain in money oney denied S hay Vs va G motion tor for a new trial overruled |