Show SUPREME COURT Al This llcrnlogs Suiloa a Good Drat was Done SLVeitu uriMOts niM > iitu > A Caw Arcnid Iinolrlni tlio Jumllon ofllioTaTotlanof Oflciii Mater tlhgloicUiler ltuiliiM All the JilJgw WHO pteociit at Ilio ening uf thOu tuotntng1 MMOU of the IctiltorlalHupreniucourt AnciUT AH AHlU1KIMnK Judgo M Mcli rendernd Iho courts Pinion In Ihie case of tie Natlontl Hnk of the itepuhuilcrepondenlva lt K liapgond J lints Thomson Mary L ClitlMInn and ThroJore Jlurmcttur TOils won an aollon tu foieolown I 1II olu Riven to encore n noto for IKKK ho note having Leon given by the defendant llapgood toTboniptoo Tile latltr awliiavil tIle note to hiltllvt wh anUuod I U to ilalutlU ThI iwn anJ Ulirlitlan xuaraiitwil layment AIr ILl lull waa begun Clilltlun hold tile nol tu plnlutllt nod the aotlou wa oouilnuml lu the nnka uauie for tho beuufll uf Chrli tiau l A moore of for olo > ur wan mdu niiil Hit mirtKaiml pr mlaw or dared cold Tile tlifrtidaul llunnwlur was a purohawr uIJct j lo bile mutt gag TIle dufeudant HapnooU 1 mltil front hoe Judgment Thu oulyijuuttlou protculeil by tlio sIleal > waa whitheraflor Chrlttlan paid bu debt to 11lolllr It oouM proiccut hu action tu judgmuut for her Lcnefll Thu wit tt now ijuoUkl anionic otheir bo cut of Man T Ul ar 3D Cal 40H lot which tt was held that tIlt eectloi or the CWornIAo not only nllonrd I rooovery of Ih8 land luwl for In bloc lanio of tho original plalnllll but all ormutud n recovery of renl uud irofllaafltr the lal and up to tile day of trial lull < would pjip ar lo bun uueu wore doubtful caie than than one at bar ThH cur ajoptnl till MO Ion c the Callfornlii colIc after the oouilructlouiclveiilu the abovu oa c and oIlIer bad l > n bIuds and WM Inclined to follow ouch oonitrucllon oOIIIIllulI IniiM their bouoti hOund there Wan uu error In the ricorj and aniruunl thu udEmeut of thu lower mull with COt 10 the lorpoudMit Judgu Sillier oooourrnl TIIK CAM 111TK CASe In tIc cam 01 tbu 1coplu co CAM Ilio who wa lentiurvl to welvo YI In th punllonllitry for murder al Orson ItlViititiorentaring wan iJrnltU utxeepllou wan taken allot rlolice uf a writ of error Hlven ooleo ANUTIItlt UK JIAHI U DXV1BO In tlio caia of Wolf Mark and Annie AintO f hie wllr vi John T Hulllvuu a rebearing was aim dUll d-Ull ksjAH AH lMLIllJiTINU L1XJA1 1V1NT Thu o Inlon if thu court Inthucono of MorrlMU Merrill A company and Ibo lellaulii I eucelllywater 1 vt Ibu CarryIjombaril oninpauy co r leiyo ripondiutwaiuliio delivered by Oblige llirlou and I 1 Was ijulto I nilhy our Thu owner of a lot In Hit Icily con Iraolud wltu a builder 10 erect 1 real dunco 1 thereon Apjvllanta and iixponlenta uern all mbconttac tar In tho fIrst degree under tile rlnolal contractor Thej all 1111holl omuoleniai for unu therein iiid uKja the principal oontraclori falluru I to ray In full Iliad notice 1 of a nicchanlca I lien against the I property Hull WOI luktltutnlby theta nlllo limo Tulrd dlitrltl court and ton cauio Was tried on an act to I > tat meulof fact On an arcouutlUK Iwtwrun the OH IIT of tim rowrty and thu chIef contractor It wa ceitalmil that there woe duo to tho latter the ruin of flOJ allIl by anteemenl of Ihu appellant I alld nxpoiideuU the owner pruiwrty woo rcli i vd of the lleiii upon his pay mol of that luru Into court TUB propurly of tho owner having Urn I relraxd thu main questIon for delel mluatlou wan thu right uf priority to Ibu fund paid Into court a > between tho nutMXJiitrnctJri Upon un UK nil itatrment of fact time trial court unlertnl judgrueu galnittbo prlnulpal 1 coulraoiur lor thle vuralamount lated thorelu and lu I favor ol tho uuoontractor > and ai to the turn dIII court ludicmen J dh I Was eiiterud In blur uf lIe 11 Carey loroUrd Comjiany From till Ill I present apiwal wan takun tbu cole qurttlou rijlud beln I lo whelhi Ibo blob of oach ot tile MMral claim nina atlurllnil on Iho date offllloKth notice for Hford or whether It at looked ou Ibo data of furnlibliiK thin tint material Bee I of tile rmlo law I of Uth IhJJ p I y > chap 30 waoqUoied tbu cur itmarkluKlha tie from leclilature hill It would tuteuduil nppeiir to iiniit that tnu Urn I of uch rerton ru had Illhir cn eoa0ehl lb or luipllui j contract with Ills owitr tl 1 the hood and that t such porioui aliould have a Han for l tuch mall rUli I or work I to vI IIuo ni nl 01 thouwni > r Inti > rtitnr ululr lu tutu prom orly At Ihu lime 01 tllc conmieniemeiit to do auch work or tumuli miohmatorlitli and tile Her I wat lelldllo any other Kteater ID tureet which thu owner rnlKhl ntjuli In lIla roperly thereafter ana before Ibo lIeu t KiUblliliiHi by procemo law Every torso tald the court claimIng a Hen mum file thu tntniieii > provided lu wotluu lu IhU I wa il ndl > euiiablo to prueervu hilt He provlduilforlnprtredlnK I > eotloii wiill itCtlU iluveu 1 jr vMeU that such lalument ihouU uu iBid within lsty duyB In 1 cub of thu pilnclfnl coniniclo and within forty dayn in coo f I aubcontraulorlu cllhor ilmirw alte the time when thulut work Khali baa keels dono or tile last matirlal hall have b11 furulihiHl I was ovidoult that thu tiling of thu tlatemrut did n1 create thu lIeu In Ihu prevent ciu alll dl Ihu l lien woru abaudouij by agiee ment of lIe partlea ro far ni the owner of Hie rPty ova concerned upo bu 10100 i Into court Ibo luiu Iou ld to lie duo rmi him to tbu Illnulml conlnetor Neither boil lllHl n alemunt under iecllon tnclvr but aoh Imd tIled one under irclloo toll Their honor thought tile trnl court nireclly dechdel l hat the Carrylxm lord Co who tint in i lured upon the performance of Uu conlrarl Upl n uurlor Men and WM entitled to have lIe mony ro polo 1 Into oourt appllnl owardetno payment In claim and tile ludmtmeit wso Ibololo Inllm Judge Miller DlleurrJ TAXINO VATKII II10IITI Theouoof the lluarlike and Itlver Walerworki and Irrigation Co plain till and appeiljnt ye Ogden oily de fend nit and rMpomliint was then H uodby 11I1I livan for the former ud I J N Klmball fur thn latter It wainu appeal fruni Judgu Minor conit Thu action was originally brought hy appellant lo ricover Jl 11t4 < 18 < city faxte paid under tir tot Iueau wire levied upon nppeiiauta water ejiiem and mniU9 uf upplylng water lo Uildou Cltyilnbatillante Apptllaula I ought tu mover on Iho ground that tIle properly levied upon wai exempt I1 taxation oath thIs wa the only quetllou r lHi4 by the appeal ntwl ants couneel 1 Intlug Isis ariiumunt Upon MK > 2781 vol 1 Compiled liw < of Utah lleipoudvuli conculeil that hue queu lion at INUU dependnl entirely upon he oonttrucllo of Ihla iitllpn Upl Ulrned tlml under a correct couitruc < lon if the taute Hie proiIty Was 110111 ilibjeetlolaxalluu Ihecan unaMibmlllid OUNCt IINIMI AN AUOOUHT Wlllard J Colllu duluiidnnt and rttpouilent Vi Janra T Molatuah waa another 0111001 I from Judgu Mlbc < court Irmto WIT tWo cauia of aclon the flrt luttud Uniia a claim far moii < y hail toU Ihu teewnd on I balnucuvf acooutit In Ibo UI ofllufKi Utfendaut dublud laid liability nud net up a counler claim ulltujlng Ihit plalnllll owed him J30I18U Thejury found generally lu favor of pUlntlll fur f Mil A motion for n now trial wa > overruled nod huuco this appeal The argumviili were now midn by 11 Hen < Jeiiii for the appillint lubniltlud and U livaua far the reepouaeut and |