Show SURPRISED THE COURT Unexpected Proposition Presented Pre-sented to Judge Marshal HARRIS CO VS CHIPMAN Plaintiffs Attorney Asks That Immediate Im-mediate Judgment Be Given for His Clients If the Defendants Pica lu Bar Is Not Sustained Argument by Wnldcmar Van Cott A L Hop paugh and R W Breckenrldgc Defendant Given More Time to Pile a Brief on New Proposition Tho sullof Harris Co of Omaha lo recover J75OX front James Chipman as turned an unexpected phase In lmlc Marshalls court yesterday U was al Ie jed III tin complaint lilrd it your riwo ihnt I Mr 1 Chlpman hud mlfapproprlalod certain funds drpoallod In hid bank ut rVmorlcan Fork by harris t Co to be used by J F 1 and It W BridHlmw In the purrhatto of caltlQ and sheep for tho plaintiff I Bonnetl Sutherland Van Cott Alll fon In behalf of Mr Chloman thou a plP i l L In bar claiming that JTnrrla it Co Having irnnsaelixl bualnesa In Utah hrouKh their iiKenli Iho tiructahaws vllioul flllnp copies of theIr charter and hllorporn lion paper with the Secretary lr Slate IIH rlflIlrlfI i by i law tho had no right to demand teller from the courts of the Slat ARGUED FOU DHFENSE The motion was argued l yesterday afternoon af-ternoon In behalf of the defendant by l VaIdcmor Vnn Cott Tho fact alleged In the defendant bill were that 1 Harris I l Co wero In the hnglnesit of buying and McolllnJ cattle and 4iwnp thdl they worn represented In ttnii by I their acentti tho Bradflhuvs whli permanent offlecH at Lohl vlu transncted their business In this State that ihHr contract with the Bnidshawp ig for till transaction of liiHlne here mid wan III Itself a bualnena trnncactlon and that the plaintiff corporation corpo-ration was Inhibited from malntalnlnp an action In the courts of the Slate by the constitutional proUslon that a corporation corpora-tion dohu or lianiMclhiK Its nKiilar bital ness In Utah without complyhiK with the requirements of the zitaiulo nhould be de barred from peeking relief In iM courts Mr Van n Cott cited numerous 1 casco and rarl numerous authorities In which It had been held l that corporations doing business III violation of law could not claim the protection of law AN ISOLATED TRANSACTION In reply A L IloppaiiKh local counsel coun-sel for Harris Co made an artrumiiit on the state of facts pot forth In the bill Tie denied that t his chentu had been do Ing business in Utah within the meaning of tIme statute Their biiHlncxg he said was Iran acll only at Denver South Omaha and St Jgneph Mo IIo denied that tho nrnr1 han were agents of the corporation and paid the money was advanced ad-vanced co a Inun for I ho purchase of tock In order that the plaintiffs might earn commissions hj the t bale of tho stock at the three markets mentioned It want not their regular business declared de-clared the attorney but an isolated busl ness < transaction Incident or an accl ucnt Mr Uoppauffh paid further that admitting admit-ting that the corporation had been loins business In the State tho law does not deprive the property of a foreign corporation corpo-ration of tho protection of law bccaiiHc the corporation has not lIed Its articles am In thin case the money taken from Jlarrln Co wia their property Judge Marshall nupKcslcd that tho money mIght hoc KOIIO out of their pos scissloii under the terms of tho contract and Mr Iloppaugn I replied that tho money was not tIred in executing the contract con-tract or tho suit would not have been necessary R Y Breckonrld then addressed the cot rI 1 Hi asserted that Harris Co bejrm their dealing wIth the Bradshawu on the strength of Mr ChlpmanH repro I HentallorH that they were reliable men when he know cii the lime thai they wore Irretrievably ruined If I as the other tide contended It wan part of the regular business of the dram to loan money to responsible re-sponsible parlies on feeders he said Il did not apply In this t ca < e bwuiso they 1 hnd not loaned any money lo responsible parties In Utah SURPRIS15 SPRUNG It wan then that Mr Breckcnrldge laid down tho proposition lint surprl c < l lie court and couneel Ho said thai the mica llon before the court wnti one of fact ai well as of law It must be insumcd that the faiMo alleged In lie I defendants hill constituted the I whole defense ho said and If thoy worn found to bo 1 fula the plaintiffs should receive Judgment for their claim without further proof If the plev In liar was sustained he argued tho loclslon would be Imal as against I ho plilnlllf corporation hnce It was only jlalntlff JtiMt that If the facts on which the plea waR founded were shown not to I CJlst j final Judgment should be glxen a igalnnt tho defendant It would be nih hi I lest ly unfair hn said to give hue dofondant an opportunity to win his cane by a pica In bar and If that fell through I to file an answer and try another line of < li icnse Judge Mariihnll had his doubts about tho matter and said he would take time lo look It up Mr Vui Colt protested against the assumptions Mr Brocken I ridge and said that If tho IdeaL In bur was to deprive him of tho right to anawer Ill wanted to withdraw tho pleat The I court would not let him withdraw the pica but gave him until November L5th to Ille a brief on the question raised by time t Omaha attorney and gave the t latter until December IStSi to Hlu an nnBcrlhJ brief |