OCR Text |
Show Salisbury loses i important case (lupxemo Court Holds Tbuit Estato of I Maroni Williams Must Bo Paid t . $5500 and Interest. ' J SALISBURY, according lo a 111 1 de-rcc of tho Supromo court, lj9mu3t pay to Kate GuthclU ad-I ad-I mlnJRtratrlx of. tho estate of Mnronl Williams, deceased, tho sum IJof J5500. together with Interest, as the I balance duo on the purchase price of T mining claim sold by tho deceased Sack In 1SS2. Tho facts In tho case Appear to bo that Williams agreed to Tell tho Poabody mining claim, oltuated fri the West Mountain mining district, J for ?1G,000. Ho received $10,500 down, ftftpd wan to get the balance when the IfSropcrty should again be Bold. Jfcrho abovo appellant, together with tola brothor, Monroo Salisbury, and J. IT. Gilmer, vrero doing business at tho Time under the Arm namo of Gilmer, Jfedltrbury & Co., and they speculated Considerably In mining properties. The fePeabody claim was transferred for a nominal sum to tho Stewart Mining lcompany, of which O. J. Salisbury was foho of the directors and the other de-j'fendanta de-j'fendanta wero BtocKholdcrs. The claim 1JI0 question proved to bo rich and was paid by tho Stewart Mining company, jfLlong with soma other properties, for jttlOO.OOO. Tho defendants held that the Jflrst Balo of tho property was the real ifsalc, bo far as tho plaintiff wa3 con-jcerncd, con-jcerncd, and that as the prlco received tfdld not amount to anything they were cot obliged to pay anything. S History of tho Case. "An action was brought in tho District Court, whero a motion for non-suit by tho defendant was granted after the plaintiff had submitted her case. On appeal to tho Supremo court tho action Ibt tho lower court was sustained. Nothing Noth-ing daunted by this, and feeling that he was entitled to tho money, the plaintiff Instituted another suit and judgment was rendered In her favor for the full amount prayed for. Then It was O. J. Salisbury's turn tojappeal to the Supreme court. His attempt to defeat tho action by pleading the Btat-uto Btat-uto of limitations was unavailing, as iwas aiao his contention that the non-ult non-ult of the former action was an cs-llbppel cs-llbppel to tho present suit. LtfcTho opinion Is written by Justice Mc-$Garty Mc-$Garty anQ concurred In by Chief Jus-Mlve Jus-Mlve Baskln. Justice Bartch does not febneur in tho findings, but did not irwTltc any dissenting opinion. The case Ills definitely disposed of In tho follow-long follow-long extract from the opinion: Gist of tho Opinion. J "Therefore, It will be seen that the ft property was eventually sold for a llvftluablc consideration by these parties, SiShd they, having accepted the benefits of the contract, cannot escape the lla-imllltlea lla-imllltlea Imposed by Its terms; In other iwords, they could not by a clrcultoun method of dealing, which the record llBhows was. In effect, between them-jBclves, them-jBclves, appropriate and dispose of tho "iftpropprty us their own, and by the same Tiscrles of trniiHacllons release them-Jfficivcs them-Jfficivcs from the liability to pay th bal-iliince bal-iliince of the purchase price. ffWe find no roverslble error In the cord and the Judgment is therefore firmed, with costs." cover $1939 damages. Tho opinion, written by Chief Justice Baskln, holds that uie evidence introduced was sufficient suf-ficient to support a verdict In favor of tho defendant, and rcmandB the caso for a new trial. Tho costs arc taxed to tho respondent Justice McCarty concurs con-curs in tho opinion, while Justice Bartch dissents. District Judge Marloncaux 1b uphold by the Supremo court In the caso of M. It. Garrity vs. the Bullion-Beck and Champion Mining company, appellant. The action was one wherein the plaintiff plain-tiff sued for 520,000 damages for personal per-sonal injuries sustained while working in tho mine of tho defendant company. The Judgment rendered and affirmed by the Supreme court nssesses tho plaintiff's damages at J1695. Justice McCarty writes the opinion, with Chief Justice Baskln and Justice Bartch concurring. con-curring. Tho will of Gcorgo N. Dow, lato warden war-den of tho State penitentiary, who died In this city on February 27, 190i, was filed for probato in the District court yesterday. The deceased left an estate es-tate of the probable value of 5S240. Ills only heirs ure his widow, Alice I. Dow, and a son and daughter. In accordance accord-ance with a provision of the will, Mrs. Dow, tho petitioner, asks to be appointed ap-pointed executrix without bonds. The will provldew that everything of valuo of which the deceased died possessed bo awarded to his widow. Decrees of divorco were granted by Judge Lewis to the plaintiffs in tho cases of Gertrude Sparks vs. William Sparks and Elizabeth Westfall vs. Harrison Har-rison Westfall. Judge Stewurt yesterday ordered that the following cases be dismissed at tho plaintiffs' cost: Charles A. Lowry vs. Consolidated Railway and Power company; William W. Clark vs. Elmer B. Jonc3 ct al.; Russell I vie vs. Union Stone and Lime company, and Tsadorc Carlton vs. Consolidated Railway and Power company. In the caso of the State against Carl Warr, charged with attempting to commit com-mit burglary, Judge Morse yesterday appointed Attorneys Harwood and Halgh to look after the interests of the defendant. |