Show ONE MORE REVERSAL Suptm Conrt Decision In Case of Eastman vs Gnrrey I HISaiSSAI Of AU1UX OIUIFREU jnlnloti Also Or rrtils a Trrrlorlil hUirnn Cur liicilou In Wit ch Jnillo Hindi nits nlcd An opinion of the Stile Supreme court banded down today aeti ailde bejulgmantol the lower court and nltfei the complaint ot au action In ijoctment brontht by May Eiit mel a aluit A R Ourroy The opinion poet illll further by ovtrrullnj be Territorial Bupieme court dtclilon In he Case of Daniel llamer against Wbr counly and alo the CliO ol Ogden oily vs Hamrr In so far as It coiUlols with today decision The court alto bold tbat the law I as tiled In the two Utter caies was not lorrecl sad that the dlteentlng opinion filed at the time by Juttlce Barton lu the cite ot llamer vi Weber county correctly stated the rule which abouldgoverii the race ilalnilO In Ibo case decided today aIlege In ocr omplalol that ske We Ibo owner ol certain land alluded lu the city and county ol Bill iitke In tie year 1892 and Ibat Ibe defendant eje000t 1 her u her damKe In the sum 01915 I Ilalnlia prayed for ludgmeul ad time rcoverj of the property Defendant his nsweralleged that he wee owner 01 tha dhpulu properly by roll era mortgage hell Id given I y John W Irons and his wile U W C 1avey truitee lo secure the pay 10111 ol a 2009 note Judge UIIrry before whom Ih eec wes trIed hiaioh for tha pllnilif In the cult 01 620 aw the rent auu pronl thereof COu1I to dl February Febru-ary 7 1897 and 10 per tiucilh lur Ibo Hiilnued wlthhoidini and COI A motion furs new trial was over doled when endant took an appeal TOe plain dlated her rlgbn and title lo the Ia ecu spun a lox t deed cue cuted by tbe recorder ol Boll L > ike Oily 10 Olnl Wlddebarg August 1SOJ rue In which Whsa epsiui 1 mieaiinent on w ser main > lur 1880J amouulnd 10 049 am wee loU lu Oluvla Wlddei r < fur 5921 00 the a 1101 Oatober IbOJ who ainr obtain toga led uouvuyel the property lo ulalnlia The properly was Talutd al 5000 Here appeiri to have been a dlt irtpiucy In the description ol the proierty at dticrlb In the an ii < mint uollce lOll ibo tax deed while the notice tale gave atlll auolbvr kind 01 tleicrlpllou The court bolus thai theee were mater al defeoti Allen lion h calluil to Ibe eall that the properlY < prop-erlY was told fur 91usd more Ilia Inc am uut ul the tile ihoub b Inc I cj in Icy II n where anoeura what ihi 9th to ws furor wiualbeoene 0111 1bo court further flode that thu fInding and Judgment wr not sot I I ported by Olin uudliputed teitlmouy In tbe cec Bud that Ibo court below erred toil flodisnu not Judgment The opinion u delivered u > Juitlo Miner Nud concurred lu I by Cute uitlce Zne and Juillce lunch |