OCR Text |
Show CONFLICT OF JUSTICE AND LftWjS NOTED Supreme Court Ruling Yesterday Yes-terday Shows Interesting-Procedure. In the opinioD of Justice. Samuel R. Thurman and . Justice J. E. Frick, both supreme court judges agree, In the case of the Salt Lake Investment company against J. M. Stoutt,' in which the defendant de-fendant appeals fom the decision of the Third district court, that, while In fact the appellant is not wholly liable for further fur-ther collection of a promissory note, the law does not permit the highest court in the state to grant a new trial. That "in order to reverse the order denying appellant's ap-pellant's motion for a new trial we would be compelled to find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. mo-tion. This, under the law by which we are controlled, we cannot do." original suit in the district court was begun for the recovery of S2019.90, alleged al-leged to be due on a promissory note, with interest and attorney's fee. Originally, Original-ly, according to the facts presented, the note was given with collateral, ten shares of Utah National bank stock, then valued at $1000. When the note fell due the debtor was unable to pay and issued another an-other note adding twejve more shares of the bank stock a3 security. The de-fendant de-fendant claims that the stocks are now worth $7370. As no mention of the stocks was made in the notes presented to the court, for which judgment was asked, the supreme court held that they could' not be considered as evidence, according to law. Justice Frick, in concluding the written writ-ten concurring opinion of the court, after reviewing the entire case, says: "In view of the foregoing, I can see no escape from the conclusion reached by my associate, although, in my judgment, appellant is required re-quired to pay a debt twice, or, in any event, far more than, in justice, he ought to pay. Courts, however, cannot ignore the long-established and well-settled rules of law and procedure which are essential to the due administration of law and justice in order to avoid a seeming injustice in-justice in a particular case. Nor can they decide questions not properly presented pre-sented for review. That would be usurping usurp-ing power which. If indulged in, would. In the long run, lead to far greater Injustice." |