OCR Text |
Show cessary for the plaintiff to set forth that he is entitled to the possession of the property sought to be recovered. The plaintiff alleges al-leges that there is an association of individuals individ-uals known as the democratic party of Utah; that said party has appointed certain per-sons, per-sons, the plaintiff being among the number, num-ber, as a committee to transact the business of said association. That being true it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to set forth any other fact than that he as secretary of the democratic committee com-mittee is entitled to the books sued for. The fact that the plaintiff was appointed the secretary, is sufficient. With regard to the question as to whether the books of record have been sufficiently described, it appears from the complaint that the books sought to be recovered are two books of record containing con-taining the proceedings of the democratic territorial committee of Utah since the year 1887. If the defendants have no 6uch books they An easily answer this allegation. If they have, then the books should be forthwith forth-with coming; the description is particular and certain, that no mistake can be made as to what books are required. Under all the circumstances, for the purpose pur-pose Of this demurrer, it appears that the plaintiff is now and has been since the 8th day of May, 1888, a duly qualified and appointed ap-pointed member of the territorial democratic central committee of Utah territory, having been on or about the day last aforesaid, with other persons associated with him, electors of Utah territory, duly authorized and appointed ap-pointed of the accredited agents, trustees, and representatives of said democratic party in convention duly assembled, with power to hold their said offices for the period of four years, and until their successors should be duly appointed. This, under the law, appears from the admissions of the demurrer. de-murrer. It also appear? that the democratic party of Utah, which the plaintiff claims to represent, repre-sent, has been organized and has existed in Utah territory since about the year 1872. It also appears that about the 2nd day of April, 1892, the plaintiff was duly appointed secretary of the democratic territorial committee com-mittee of Utah territory, and that as such secretary he was duly charged with the safe keeping and custody of all the record bo'oks, minute books and books of account properly proper-ly pertaining to his office as such secretary together with the two certain books of record re-cord described in the complaint containing the proceedings of the meetings of the dem-ocratic dem-ocratic territorial committee of Utah territory terri-tory since the pear 1888. It also appears that the plaintiff made the mand of the defendants for said books of record; that the value of the same ia the $15; and that they contain the proceedings of the meetings of the democratic territorial committee of "Utah, since the year 1887. It also appears that the defendants do now and have, without the consent of plaintiff unlawfully withheld aud detained the possession pos-session of the books aforesaid, from the possession of the plaintiff. It also appears that before the commencement commence-ment of this action and on the 6th day of May, 1892, the plaintiff demanded the possession pos-session of said books and documents and that the defendants have and still unlawfully unlaw-fully and wrongfully withhold and detain said books and documents from the possession posses-sion of the plaintiff. It likewise appears that the plaintiff is the duly authorized, appointed secretary of the democratic territorial committee of the territory ter-ritory of Utah. In view of the facts as they appear from the complaint and under the statute of this territory and the decisions of the court, the court finds that the plaintiff Is the secretary of the democratic territorial committee of Utah territory, and is entitled to the possession posses-sion of the two certain books of record described de-scribed in the complaint, now in the possession posses-sion of the defendants and containing the records of the democratic territorial committee commit-tee of Utah since the year 1887; and that the plaiutiff shall have and recover said books or the value as set forth in the complaint. The demurrer is, therefore, overruled, and the defendants may have, if they desire, a reasonable time to answer the complaint of -the plaintiff. I . ..a . IT IS OVERRULED. Decision of Justice Lochrie in the Case of Dnke Against Norrell and Smith. DUKE ENTITLED TO THE BOOKS. Tha Court Holds that He is a Member of the Democratic Committee. The Defendants Allowed a Reasonable Time to Answer But They Give Notice of an Appeal. At 10 o'clock this morning, Justice Lochrie Loch-rie announced his decision on the demurrer in the ease of Harry T. Puke vs. A. G. Norrell Nor-rell and Elias A. Smith, in which the plaintiff, plain-tiff, claiming to be the chairman of the democratic dem-ocratic committee, sues to recover certain books and documents In the possession of the defendants. The court overruled the demurrer and allowed the defendants a "reasonable time" in wbich to answer, but Mr. Hurd, their attorney, gave notice of an appeal. The decision in full is as follows: In this case the plaintiff on the 6th day of May, 1892, filed his complaint alleging that since the 8th day of May, 1888, he has been a duly and appointed member of the territorial terri-torial democratic committee of this territory together with divers other persons associated asso-ciated with him. He further alleges that said committee was appointed by the duly authorized and accredited agents and representatives repre-sentatives in convention assembled of a certain cer-tain political association of persons and citizens citi-zens of the United States of America and electors of the territory of Utah, known and called the democratic party of Utah territory. terri-tory. He further alleges that he was appointed ap-pointed a member of said committee on said 8th day of May, 1888, and was entitled to hold his office and position for the period of four years and until his successor should be duly appointed. It is further alleged in the complaint that the democratic party of Utah has been in existence and organized in this territory sinccabout the year 1872, and that on the 2nd day of April, 1892, the plaintiff was by an order and resolution of the democratic territorial committee duly appointed ap-pointed its secretary and as such was authorized and charged with the duty of taking and keeping all the books and records and minute books of said committee. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants have in their possession two certain books of record containing the proceedings of said committee since the year 1887. The plaintiff further alleges that on the 6th day of May, 1892, the day of tiling his complaint that he made a demand for the said books of record and he alleges that the same are iu the possession of the defendants and that the plaintiffs have unlawfully aud wrongfully withheld the possession of the said books from his custody. Defendants have filed their demurrer, claiming: First That this court has no jurisdiction either of the person of the defendants or of the subject matter of this action. Second That the plaintiff has no legal capacity ca-pacity to sue as the agent of or on behalf of the democratic party of Utah territory to recover re-cover the records claimed. Third That there is a defect of the parties plaintiff in the suit; the defendants claim that all members of the democratic party of Utah territory should be made plaintiffs in this action. Fourth--That the complaint does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Fifth That the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain, in that, that it does not appear what if any persons constitute consti-tute the democratic territorial committee nor what authority said persons have to appoint the plaintiff the secretary of that committee. It is claimed by the demurrer that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue as asrent or on behalf of the democratic party of Utah territory to recover the records which he alleges he is entitled to the possession pos-session of. From the reading of the complaint com-plaint it appears that the plaintiff sues as an individual, or as a bailee of the territorial committee of the democratic party of Utah territory. There is no denial in the demurrer, de-murrer, and there can be none, for the purpose pur-pose of the demurrer, but what there is a territorial committee of the democratic party of Utah. There is nothing denying the fact that the plaintiff is the secretary of that committee. For the purpose of this demurrer these matters as set forth in the complaint must be taken as confessed nor what if any books of record said action is brought to recover. Under our statute and the decisions of our courts a demurrer admit all the facts contained con-tained in the complaint that are properly pleaded and alleges substantially, that even though those facts be true, that there is no cause of action. There can be in this case no question but what the court has jurisdiction jurisdic-tion of the persons of the defendants; for by their demurrer they have themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. The court also has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The value of the property sought to be recovered by the complaint is the sum of 15.00. That is within the jurisdiction juris-diction of a justice of the peace. This disposes dis-poses of the tirst subdivision of the demurrer. The court, therefore, cannot do otherwise than find that the plaintiff has the legal capacity ca-pacity to sue for the books of record that he claims. Replevin, or as it is called under our procedure, claim and delivery, is a possessory pos-sessory action. Whoever is entitled to the possession of the property sued for, is authorized au-thorized to sue for the same. That being so the court must determine that the second ground of the demurrer is not well taken. Third It is alleged that there is a defect of parties plaintiff's iu that the plaintiff should have associated with him all the members of the democratic party of the territory ter-ritory of Utah. It will be observed from the reading of the complaint that the plaintiff sues as the secretary of the committee com-mittee or in other words as the secretary of a board of trustees appointed by an association associa-tion of individuals and he claims as secretary that he is entitled to the possession of certain cer-tain books of record. The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the secretary of a society or association of individuals is entitled to have the possession and to keep the books of record of the association that he represents. It is not necessary therefore, that he should join with him all who are members of the association. It is simply necessary that he should be entitled to the possession of the property which he seeks. Fourth As to the fourth cause of demurrer to the complaint, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it will be observed that the plaintiff alleges in his complaint, which is sworn to, that since May 8, 1888, he has been a member of an association called the democratic territorial ter-ritorial committee of Utah territory, and that since the 2nd day of April, 1892, that he has been and that he is now the secretary secre-tary of said committee; that the defendants have wrongfully withheld from him the possession of certain books of record which he describes as being books of records containing con-taining the proceedings of said committee since 1887; that he has made demand for said books of record and has been refused possession of the same. This being a possessory pos-sessory action the sole question for the court to consider is, who is entitled to the possession of the property that is claimed. The plaintiff having set forth he is entitled to the property, and having made a demand and a refusal of the same, it sufficiently appears ap-pears upon the face of the papers that he is entitled to recover. 5th. The fifth ground of demurrer alleges al-leges that it does n t appear from the complaint com-plaint what if any persons compose the territorial ter-ritorial democratic committee of Utah ; nor that either of said persons have appointed the plaintiff its secretary; nor what if any books of record tb1 action t brooght to recover. re-cover. In a possessory action it is not ne- - ' il t. :l . |