OCR Text |
Show III THE SUPREME COURT, I A Point at Issue with Reference to I the Hiclanlcs' Lltn Act, 1890. H l lUlI.Itllll) ( Oil 1't NY'S UTL'lL. H Tho Judges Mill Onllims In ivuslon M Until March 2')lh. MllotI- M lantous Salts H The ludges prusoot ut this niomlh j' M session of tin. Territorial Hupreme M ucuit wtru Associate Justices lllnck- M burn, Mlucr nud Hutch, and when M Clerk Ilachu had IIuIsIuhI thonadlng M of Hie mlautesi of the previous day M The legal arguuiinls lu thocaioof H Morrlwii, Menlll-VCo. it al., nppel- lants, vs. tlio Carey-Lomhard Co. ct LH al , rispoudcnls, were prooeedsd with. M Couniclon thu respective sides weru ,H Haldwln nnd Tallock for thu nptel- H lants; Ilowir.au and Xipf (or thu it- spoiide-.tii. H 1'. W. Madion contracted ulllt I), M C. Mcdregor, cotilraclor, for tbe ereu- fl tlouof n rwideiicu In this city, Ap- M iclliiuta and respondents weru sub- M contractors of Iho first degroo under McUrogor; thu sub-ojntracta weru culcred Into after thu fanago of the Mechanics' Lieu Act of lbDj.and tholr H rights by virtue of inisrlmili liens by Ibeui tiled weru lo bu cwnitmed In ao oordunco with the provisions thereof, H H oncer, Hjwater oV Co. Ugau an M action to forccloso their lieu, and Morrison, Merrill .V Co. took a sH similar slip, the ilelcndatit being M made n tesjiondeut In lhu latter In- M staucu. These cases weru aferwards ,H consolidated, lu December, U01, by .H content of the parlies, Madien nller an accouullug wllh Mcdtegor, tald Into H court the luni of t-M, the amouut M then duo thu latter Ironi tbu former. .H Thu case came before Chief Justice Ziiiu for hcu.lug on July :.lrd, 189.', iin an agreed statement ol facts; and M Ibuijucillounow to bo decided by tbu .H supn mo court was thecoiislrucllonof H the act of 181)0, and who under this act ssi and agreed Btalimeut of faces waseu- asH titled lo the first lieu, llio appellsnls Ll contended that the lower court erred H 111 finding that tbu Carey. Lombard Lumber company was eiillllni to thu Hist lieu, claiming that Morrison, B Merrill and company, having tiled sl their lieu first, were vntllted to be imld M 111 full Horn the fuuda In tho bauds H of tbe court, tint Hpeucer, llywater H A. Cu , having filed theirs second, were s enlllled to bu laid In full; nud that the H Carey-Lombard Co. vieiuentltloj only B to lhu remainder of thu funds. saaafl rhe li spondent claimed the Itw to M bt, uud theoourtlcluwsolitld.thattbu B suo-coiitraclor who first coinmencud ta H do work or to furuiih material for thu properly wai entitled tu bis iayln full, H without reftrencu to thu rights ur H inlircsls of other sub-conlractoiswhosv H claims msy bu of tho sauiu class laud HI of njual merit, nnd with ut rifeieuco fl to thu datea of filing llc-ns, except only jfli that his II en uas tiled within forty fl daya of furnishing the last item. This, , lhu u pellsnls' couusd Insisted, was so H arbitrary and unreasonable, and so H calculated lo work hardship In the H great majority of cast, thai It cculd H lint liavu hi en tbu luteutlon HI orthuleglslatuiewheultbecauiu law. M That by lhu Judgment of thu lower H court thu reepoudiuts got their claim In full, while thu uipellants obtalnud H nothing, ullhuugh thu only possible H merit tne respondents could urge over H thu uipullanta Wua that thu loriuer H comniencud to furulih material May H Sth, lb'Jj, while thu other parly began Hsl on July 1st of tbu samu year. It was H loiiited out by thu appellants that H .Morrison, Merrill .V Co.'. lien lor H $1100 was 11 ed November loth, 1S9J, H uudtbutof H eiirur-liy water Co , for H $11.' SO, December I'Jud In the same Hsai yar, uud that both should be laid lu H1 lull;thattbu Caiej-Umlard .Ulntcr H Co.'s lieu was not tiled till Hoptumber H 17lh, lb'JI, and should taku thu balaucu H uf thu fund after appellants' H claims were fully satisfied. Un H thu other band, lue ic onilenls con- HI lend that the up, ellauts should not HU liavu abanduuuJ their rloht r.r ltH saaaaal agaluit tho pio erty ol 1', W. MaJseii, Hi as thu contract prhe something llku HI $1J,W would Iiomi bseu iiuiplu to Hsl bavu paid apiullnut'a claim lu full. HI Ihv urguiiiuuts were lengthy, uud HI at their cluse the Court look lhu matter HI under advlseiiuut, H A IIAltllUAUC'Ml'ANV Al'PUAU. H Thu next cnau on the Hat was that of M George Lverett, reiondeut, vs. thu HI OngouHbort Linuo. Utah Norlhuru HI llullvtay Company, niptlluuts. bor HI thu foimer J ergusou aud Cannon H n ptarcd; tliucompaiiy was lei risentcd sHsl by Attorney Van Cott. H In -November, IbbO, Kvsrett was il H pa-sunger by une of tbuappellant'a H trains Irom Ugdcu to Halt Luau City. Hsl Near Korlli Halt I.uko a collision oc- H currcil In which thu respondent was HI serlouslyliijuicd.aiidbubtouglitsiilt tu HI recover $lu,uild. Tbu casn was tried lo HI Judgu Xauu'a court uud thu Jury Hsl nwarded the pluliitlll $ 1,000, thu costs H nniouutltig In addition to $I6'.M. HI Agulust this verdict and thu order H overruling tbu motion for u new trlul H tbu present ai peal Is taken. HI |