OCR Text |
Show COURT REVERSES I HILTQNACTIONS I Woman Loses in AH of the Nine H Cases Taken Up on H Appeal. H OPINIONS HANDED DOWN I BY SUPREME TRIBUNAL Cannot Recover Dower on Prop- erty Sold Before Death H of Dr. Park. H By two opinions handed down by thfc supremo court o fthe state on Tues-day, Tues-day, Mrs. Annie V. A. Hilton loses her .dower right in property owned by tho late Or. John R. Park and conveyed by him to other parties prior to hla death. Mrs. Hilton entered into a "celestial mar-riagc" mar-riagc" under thc rites of thc Mormon church with Dr. Parle while supposedly on her death bed. She afterwards re-covered re-covered and with Dr. Park signed an agreement of divorce according to the practice of the church. After Dr. Park's death she filed an action against the executors of his estate claiming an in-tcrcst in-tcrcst in thc same as his legal widow. This case was carried to the suprcnu court and in Its opinion It was held that the "celestial marriage" was a marriage for time as well as eternity and that she. was the legal widow of Or. Park and. as such, entitled to her dower interest In his estate. Tn that case it was held that thc church divorce was not a legai Later Mrs. Dillon brought an actior against nine different pcr5ons who had purchased property from Dr. Park dur-ing dur-ing his life time to recover her dowci interest in the property so conveyed anc Judge C. W. Morse, of the district court rendered decrees In her favor in eight fl out of the nine eases. Jn thc ninth case fl he decided against her for the reason that she introduced uo competent cI-dence cI-dence to prove her marriage to Dr. Park. In eight of these cases tho supreme fl court holds that she is estopped from claiming any interest in the property JM conveyed because of her conduct in cu-terimr cu-terimr Into the divorce agreement with Dr. Park and afterwards marrying her present husband, William Hilton, in join-Ing join-Ing conveyances witli Hilton as his wife and otherwise holding him out as her husband. Concerning Marriage. The facts connected with Mrs. Hilton's case arc widely known and have made her cases perhaps the most celebrated ones in the recent history of litigation In Utah. On December s, 1372. Mrs. II II-ton, II-ton, who was then Miss Annie F. Armi-tage. Armi-tage. was married to Dr. Park under what is known as the "celestial mar-riage" mar-riage" ceremony of tlte Mormon church, which was claimed by thc Mormon church officials to be a marriage for eternity only. Miss ArmitaRo was sup-posed sup-posed at that time lo be on her dying bed and it war. the belief that a married woman had a belter standing in the hereafter than an unmarried one. She recovered from her Illness and on March 10. 1 S73. a divorce was obtained from the Morm6n church authorities which wn.s signed by Miss Arm! tape and Dr. Park. Afterwards she married Wii-Ham Wii-Ham Hilton and bore him ten children. Dr. Park died on September 30. 1900. la-Ing la-Ing unite a large estate. For years hs had been very prominent, in educational circles of the territory and stale, having been president of thc University of Des- tM eret and at thc time of his death he was state superintendent of public iustruc- After Dr. Tark's death Mrs. Hilton claimed her dower rights in his estate and the supreme court upheld her con- IH tentlon. She thereby secured a large por-Hon por-Hon of his estate. She then commenced actions against persons who had pur-chased pur-chased property from Dr. Park in his life-lime life-lime to recover her dower Interest In property purchased by them. Nine Actions Begun. Nino actions were started by her against the following defendants: Robert W. Sloan and others. Adolph M. Anderson and others. Fred Stauffcr and others. Everard Biercr and others. Ts'ellle M, Blair and othors. Salt Lake City. Mae C. .Reamer. Kllr.abeth Ccohegan and Gideon Snyder and wife. In the first eight cases Judge Morse rendered decisions In favor of Mrs. Hilton. giving her a dower Interest In property IH valii.-d at about $70,000. In the Gideon Snyder case the court decided against her on the ground that she did not in-troduee in-troduee competent evidence to provo her marriage to Dr. Tarlc. Thc supreme court reverses Ibe decisions In the eight cases and nfflrms tho decision in tho Snvder case and Mrs. 'Hilton thereby loses her dower interest in all of the property involved. The property Is lo-en lo-en ted at thc bend of Stato street and has Greatly Increased In value since Dr. Park sold it to tho various purchasers made parties to the actions. Tho opinions of the supreme court were written by Justice Frirk and con- IH currod in bv Justice McCarty and Dls-lrict Dls-lrict Judge T. D. Lewis, who sat in lh place of Chier Justice D. N. Slranp. who jH was disqualified by reason of his connee-Hon connee-Hon as counsel in the Slrst case brought IH bv Mrs. Hilton against the nxcwitors of VM tho Park estate to establish her rights jH as his widow. Gist of Opinion. In thc eismt cases, which were decided together, the court holds thai, in so far as the marriage relation betwoen Dr. B John R. Park and Mrs. Hilton is con- IH corned, the decisions in tho cases ot Vm Hilton vs. Roylance and Hilton vs. btew- IH art would be followed, and hence that jH question Is not discussed. With regard to the onestlon of estoppel, the court, in substance, holds that while tho so-called "church divorce" was impotent to ciis- jH solvo the marriage relation between Dr. Park and Miss Armltagc (Mrs. Hilton). IH yet In the agreement entered into be- IH tween them, as evidenced In the. writing ealWl a church divorce. Mrs. Hilton. n erfect. said to Dr. Park: "You may deal with vour property as your own; you mav represent yourself as a single man. and" you may deal with all the world upon that basis." The court further holds that In enteritis: Into a marrlago jH with Mrs Hilton subsequent to tho so- IH called church divorce. .Mrs. Hilton acted IH upon and afnrmcd the foregoing agree-monf, agree-monf, that tho parties to the eight ac-lions-, or their grantors, who dealt will) Dr. rark. nnd who relied upon his rep- IH resentations thnt ho was a single man. at the time llie conveyances woro made jH (and therefore did not ask for nor get the signature of a wife lo Iheir deeds), IH nnd who purchased tho property in ques-tion ques-tion In the eight .actions, could invoke an equitable- estoppel as n gainst Mrs. Hilton upon the ground that by her conduct In entering into the so-called divorce agreement: tn marrying Mr. 1 1 II - B ton; In loinlng in conveyances with Hi I- JM ton as his wife; in holding him out ns jM her husbund for almost a generation und IH hi assuming his name, sho was. as against the Innocent purchasers from Dr. IH rark, estopped from now saying that jH Continued os Pu0 Two H COURT REVERSES HILTON ACTIONS Continued From Page One. those things were not true. That to permit per-mit her to say so would result In Injury to tho purchasers from Dr. Park which a court of equity would prevent. The Judgments are therefore reversed, with directions to the lower court to set nsldo Its conclusions of law and to enter Judgments Judg-ments quieting the title In the several purchasors. Thin Ono Affirmed. In the caso of Hilton vs. Snyder tho decision Is based upon purely technical grounds. In this case. Mr. Snyder denied de-nied that Mrs. Hilton was tho widow, or ever had been the wife of Dr. John R Park. Notwithstanding this denial, counsel for Mrs. Hilton at tho trial of the caso produced no evldoncc of tho marriage except the decisions of tho supremo court In Hilton vs. Roylancc and Hilton vs. Stewart, xnc trial court held that those decisions or judgments could not bo used as evidence 'against Mr. Snydor. who was neither Interested In. nor a party to, tho foregoing actions, or cither of them. The trial court accordingly accord-ingly held thai Mrs. Hilton could not ro-cover ro-cover as against Mr. Snyder, because she had not established tho fact that she ever was married to Dr. Park. It. was this holding that was assailed by Mrs. Hilton In her appcnl to Iho supremo court, and that court now holds that tho ruling of tho trial court was right. Tho supremo court In effect holds that a Judgment against ono grantee of a husband hus-band that a certain woman was his wife cannot bo used as evidence In another case, although such marriage was established estab-lished In tho first case. The court holds that the marrlago must bo established In tho second case by proper evldonco as a fact, the same as It was necessary to do In tho first case, and that no ono except parties or privies to tho first caso are bound by the Judgment In that case. |