| Show iiuiiiHMi A00 iriux ioi4 Joidit Illlr llr < l < lM Ih Coal ut To r 1011 I ami 1 llllirb I Judge Illlea rendered a decision today to-day In 1 the car ot Thomas f llowclU Via tile Iaclllc Htatea Having losers and llulldlng aMoclatlon nudlnit he Issue for the plaintiff Plaintiff III thtso tai tued to have cancelled a certain not and mortgage atilt lo collect I lvt on utmunt uf lit lon shares or MUCK ann money which he alleged he had overpaid OW defend nut company The ilifendant U I n California com jiiny dulng bualnru In this Hut aa a building and loan I IlIon Tito note and mortgage Saw part uf a transaction between JlowclU ana tho building nroclalron On tile note and mortgage IlowelU borrownl 1 IIW molllal rtl olrl panic with interest at the rate nf < per lent per annum Accompanying i tin not and mortgage wa n contract which Mid thai plaintiff had all I toot la himself thirty shares u stock In I tits de fchlant association and that ho would Aviation fifteen of the shares Writ to the aMuilutlim ua a Ixmua and a tontlder ullon or tile 11100 on the other Hfleeii lurea llowrlla agreed to pay III pur month ae premium until ihu share hod matured ur had rvachod the par vulua it IHO gxrfooladir In addition to this ho agrrttl 1 lu IAy nSD iwr nlrIo Inlerent I on Iho OI W until iho maturity of I Iho stock whlih wall In san rare Till tranactlun 11 ala de > lgnaied In tile niuit gore Real paiwri na u nlotk I auUcrlplluii and I an allotment of ahare and an ugreiimenl I the wrt ut llowella lu pay for them In 11 certain iilllcl mui tier Judge Illlea niult aa a matur Or fact I l It not Mich and says mI lock considered an n llilng of ulue ur ui hating potential iliencv is I u pur nctlon The tranucllan la I In I fact n loan of money by the u iocla lion la tile milIKMed 1 atiKkholdcr with an arrunirvment by which he hail each month repay a part of tile prlncliml urn loaned and Interest every month un Ihe I whole Runs in other wonla th < borniuer above not get any reduction In hu I Interest Outage by 1 Jullol tilt partial 1 Payments of Ihe principal mom > o hut when ho inakea the Met monthly Id lnl uf premium and Interval on the malurlty of laid tuck hv piiya the mini amount of interest aa he did the first month The rchemo neema deigned de-igned to avoid iho Htute 111 law against usury In Jurl diction where ouch atatuteii exist I ham nlio other object which are Ijwfuii unit In I sense taaea per h fix bnllron ycr hl ItjohouT 10 mated that another of lh condition nn that llowella uureo1 I in 141 I > ceilaln note I ho failed to make the ri Kulur inunthu payments and tint t I tin IlnlMtlrt railed lu puy Iho monthly Inullmetua lor u per1q1 of sit monihK the defendant Could infouc payment on the principal and Inhr1 un the I debt und un tho lint without deducting 1 I the premium I puld ur In iirot Iherriui liy bringing null und foreclosing the murteaged premliea 11 t wwu Hestember Sill ISVI l and July nd liA lloutIU paid seventy 4t 1 nlnn mcnthly Intallmentt 1 of Intereet and prnnluma 1 le contended lhal he I hould have l > ecn allowe1 the reductions re-ductions on the Intereit charge according ac-cording to the rule of partial payment and that had he been ma < te this allowance 1 al-lowance Ihe antic principal and loan would have been paid 7h tr January I nil Tho awcHtlon I however In I litH that Itowella should ray the In term and premium according to the terms of Ihe contract Ilalnlin clalmerl that I for he defendant to enforce en-force the contract would allow I to take an Inconceivable advantage nf him himAir own Judgment la I pays Ih court that t he enforcement or thes I contract would not be unranaclonble The court then quotes from the avtilon IlAwn I o 1IM and nod a term In Icon I-con tre et Identical with the Utah ut late Bay ins court I under the statute of Utah a contract con-tract fikit thin cnn b enforced aa between be-tween 1 borrowing aUKkholder so called and a domeHo corporation t can perceive no religion why the saamot nil moot not bo a filled am between a borrowing stockholder r and a foreign emigration doing business In this stale To decide whirvible I Is I 10 Irrnor and disobey the luuIIIh mingendrimlit of the Constitution uf the United Bute which Inhibit the II late from denying any pcrwm within lla Jurldcllon the equal protection ot h laws I a broad and win provision which wa Intended In In tire a reign of equal Justice throughout I ilia republic I contract such OR thepo are unconscionable or cheat contrail the Legislature ought I wou lit seem repeal the nllbt thorising them la be made ur they ought niherwlio be annulled before a court IN I Juined In refusing to enforce the memo kind nt contract made with a foreign corporation Moreover much a holding leema to bean Invasion of the Merit of freedom In I making contract The court nnd thai the Utah Hu lu proms court declnlnna In the comes of Hawlelle v Having company and Too Potable t Art binding and loan aulhorltte uxnlatlun In Ihl ta cao und on their authnrit aon him honor IInl for 1hp plaintiff i With this CARO the Cases I SlaY T llendry I W Athlon and John 1 Whllo were also tried and submitted All Intolteil I the eame nuenllonil with tile exception I of the Whlto cane and are connenuently cldeil the name way In the Uhlto mailer there use a new contract made founded on a new and dlllncl mnlderatlnn The court Ands that tho While contract liecam eztlll gulhed and I an can not be now the still Joel of litigation or ot judgment any controversy between the parties The court thin orders thai nndlnga and decree be entered for plaintiffs and for an accounting between the panic and that upon much accounting and the payment by plalnllffa uf any amount which > hall b found due from them lo defendant upon th I loan that III note and morlgugea too I cancelled I Ulmn the accounting anything he I found tile from oIhnolol 10 plaintifim 1Inll Judgment Is 10 be entered In favor ul Maintiffii Anil 1 tile now and mortgages tu In cancelled An Important timing finve A i > IIn for n rehearing In the CAM nt Win U Wton et ul 1 M Tile Tri Sample Con Mining Company was ntetl In tile office ir ihe clerk uf the Hu tremo V Pike court and title iii nflenuom II l nckell by after John neya fur appellant The ilrcllon of The court In this come wa handeil down on the HIM nil Tho petition I far re hearing miles I n number i > rn mixina I Yoh ease ahnuld lio reeiiimlne t Ono nf the principal r being I that I tile court erred either In mlappre hcnillnR tho facts of ilia 1Mlnl II I rUG tip ill to cloeil 1 by Iho reconl In I She matter of holding In rommnn the mining ctalma In contrtieriy < rr otherwise In ml conrelllng the law I no ta claim held In common The caao Involve prop 11 erly near Hllver Clio Tlnllc and the drtidon I therein It II la In aland aj the law will furnish liKereatlnir reading lo the legal frebtrift I tri and > N dally lo Ihime engage In pilning itlraUnn lrther luiuio fee 1h A motion for a new trial In the case of iho nialo again John A Ill the recently nmvlcted of a heinous crime upon n Illllo girl Was In have toilers argueil today hut un motion of coun set fur difendant i another pjtpnneinent wu unlerol tills time for two week I Mnllim fnrJailgrarnl llenle1 Judge Cherry orerruled IIi mo loll to < lay for Judgmunt upon the pleading In the I caa of Amo Moreton City a ilepucd Prolamin otallislat Holt Lake |
