OCR Text |
Show Hi Throe .IiMlgmcn(.s Arc Reversed ' and 'JVo Are Affirmed on Friday. II FIVE OPINIONS HAN OKI) DOWN AUGUST BODY New Trial (Granted in $10,000 Damage Case of Robinson Against City. i , Five opinions were handed down by the 1; i supreme court on Friday, three of which ' ' reversed tho judgments of Ihc lower courts anil two nfflrmcd the lower courts. Justice J. 12. Trick wrote all of the oplu-j oplu-j Jons, which were concurred in by Chief ni Justice Straup and Justice MeCarly. L The Judgment In the case of John H Bobinsou. appellant, agninsl Salt Lake j City, tried before Judge Armstrong, was I reversed, with instructions to grant a 1 new trial, Robinson sued to recover i damages In the .sum of 510,000 for por-yonal por-yonal Injuries allowed to have, been ro-,. ro-,. ' reived by being thrown from bis wagon on South Temple stiver, between Sixth and Seventh West streets, February 11, II J 10UU. While driving along the street his ' wagon ran into an excavation, left un-i un-i guarded, and Koblnsnn w-as thrown out and one of his legs broken. After tho plaintiff submitted all his " evidence. Judge Armstrong granted th i motion of City Attorney Oininny for a F . non-suit, and dismissed the. ease, upon the grounds that Robinson had failed to ' ' prove bis cause of action and thai the ,) city had made the excavation In the , street, or that it bad been left for any 5 ' length of llinc to charge the city with I ! notice of Us being in the street. Tho ' supreme court holds that tho lower court , . erred In granting' tho non-suit and, '- therefore, graula a new trial. J'1 if Reversal and Now Trial. ' A reversal and a now trial also are I ' granted in the ease of William U Bills. ' Appellant, against Salt Lake City, In : -which a jury In Judge Armstrong's court fr returned a verdict In favor of the city, Jl , no cause of aetlon. Hills sued to rc-f rc-f cover $5000 damages for injuries received , by riding his bicycle Into an excavation J on South Temple street, near Second IKast street. April 10. 1P07. Tlic ciiy set up contributory ncgligenco on tho part of Bills as Us defense, and tlio in-I in-I structlons of the court on the question , of contributory ncgligenco were ox- I ecptcd to by Bills as being prejudicial to , ' J bis interest. The supreme court also v takes this view and holds that the lower ' i' conn erred. I In the case of A. 13. Snow, plaintiff; M. R. Brothers, as assignee, substitute plaintiff and appellant, against E. M. "West, ihe Judgment of the lower court f, is affirmed. The question Involved is the t right to set off two judgments obtained . fj by West against Snow as against a 1 judgment obtained by Snow against 1 I West. Snow secured a Judgment against l 'I West for S1050 as damages for a levy on the former's library, claimed exempt. After the Judgment .was obtained, il was i assigned by Snow to Brothers. ' West had two judgments against i Snow, amounting to $:5G0 and J1U9. respectively. He filed a motion thai these two be set off as against the , judgment secured by Snow, and the- low- i j cr court granted tho motion, thun Icav- 1 ing a balance due to Snow, or his as signee, of $tiiS.3ii. ' It was contended by Brothers that. under the statutes, the Judgment In favor ' - of Snow, having been given as damages I , for the levy and sale of exempt prop- . erty, also was exempt and hence the J ; set off should not have been allowed, j j Not Resident of Utah, The supremo court holds that this con- I lentlon would have been good bad it not been for the fact that, when tho set off was claimed. Snow had departed from the state and had ceased to be a resident of Utah, hence be could not claim an 1 exemption under the laws of Utah. In I -i view of this fact, the court holds. , . Snow's assignee would not have any greater right than he. hence no exemp- lion could be claimed. The Judgment of the lower court In , ihe case of 13mil S. Rolapp. trustee, ap pellant, against the Ogdcn & Northwestern Northwest-ern Railroad company and the executory 1 of Ihe estate of A. It. C. Smith la rc- 1 ' versed, and the lower court is ordered to amend Us findings of fact and con-i con-i elusions of law to conform to the views expressed by the supreme courL The action was brought to foreclose 1wo trust deeds on the property or the i K railroad company, one dated February ' , HQ, 1904, for 540,000. and the other dated , September 15. 1004. for S'JO.OQO. The M lower court rendered a decree of forc- r closure, but permitted a judgment so- cured by Smith, amounting to 53781, "3. to take priority over the first trust deed and ordered It paid out of the proceeds j of the sale of the property before the ' deed mentioned. The supreme court " holds that the judgment appealed from is for too large an amount and hence . j reverses It. . In the eiLsc of the state against Jorcnzo 1 Montgomery, appellant, the judgment of j' tho lower court Is affirmed. Monl- j) i gomory was found guilty In the district ' j, "court of Weber county February 9, 1909, I of a criminal assault on Ruby Stanford, i nqcd 16 years, and wjis sentenced to ,, eighteen months in the State prison. The , '' Hupremo court denies him a new trial. |