| Show i I IS DENIED 11 US ISSAL DENID I I i I Supreme Court Decision In the Case of the I I i Eellvilla Co vs Snmuelscn ct al ItK I e tK 11 I PURPOSES OF AN APPEAL DtflNCD I f i t i 11 > miilier of Information Filed Agalnit 11 I s 11f f lAir llrrakrriTlio Ajax J Trouble I 1 I h Oilier Court Mat 0 1i I I The Supreme Court handd down an I i cown 011 nol today In the case ot the Belle i Ii Mile Pump and Sklcn works respondent respond-ent va Alma Bamuelon and Gvorgj M Cannon appellants denying the i I motion to dismiss the appeal t I This case was tried before Judgj V11 4 Cherry last May and a verdict for the li Dellcvlllc company was rendcicd Tile plaintiff alleged that acting upon L I the representolon made by John I t I I Sorcnson and others who had said 1 11 they wee solvent and owners of prop 1 ety amountlnK to 1201110 It furnished IJ the Sorenol Nelson furniture company t a com-pany with hardware amounting In I f untng value to 0 Three months later f 11 It was alleged the furniture company i executed n chattel mortgage to secure i se-cure the payment of 500 to the State I bank KSO to Zion bank 12127 SO 1 to Mary A Tonneson and J5I7 to Alma I Samueslon I M Wells and George I I M Cannon were named as truatues I The plaintiff further alleged that at 11 the time of the purchase of the hardware hard-ware the Sorcnson Nelson company f com-pany were Insolvent and that the f goods were fraudulently purchased by 11 defendants with the Intention of Increasing In-creasing the assets of the firm and for 111 Ibo benefit of unlawful preferences I Ito I-to creditors The defendants In answering an-swering denied the ownership of the I property and fraudulent representa ton s At the trial Judge Cherry 1 rendered Judgment In favor of tho I plaintiff for the recovery of Its prop ety nnd for costs A motion for anew I I a-new trial was overruled when an ap peal Yes taken When the case was called up In the 11 i Supreme court the attorneys for the respondent moved to dismiss the ap 1 Peal I on the ground that all the adverse ad-verse parties had not been served with notices as required by section 3C Compiled Com-piled Laws of Utah for 18S8 While 11 there were a number ot defendants In I the case two them Messrs Sam I uelon and Cannon appealed Notice I wa served on the plaintiffs but not on I the codefendants Before the case I I i won i called tho codefendants entered I I 1 their voluntary appearance and waived service of notice of appeal The attorney Ian I I torneys for respondent contended that an no not at Appeal hall ensrved i the court was without Jurisdiction i even though the respondent was served and the defendants had put In an up I pearancc This rained the question I i bother the failure to serve a written II notice on nil parties Interested In an I appeal affected the Jurisdiction of the Suprme court Commenting on this thTeourt eaysY I the court say The purpose of an appeal Is I to bring t every party to the action whoso Interests In-terests would be Injuriously affected 1 by a revenal or modification of the Judamnt under the jurisdiction at I I the appellate court This is upon the I principle that no person can be deprived I I de-prived of his Interests or rights In any Judicial proceeding In his absence or without first having had his day In I court and having been afforded an opportunity to be heard The same I purpose It would seem Is I subserved I ivhen those who are Interested In opposing the relief whIch th 11 appellants reeks enter their appearance appear-ance In the appellate court and waive I i notice at alleal In order that the ar party may ue lund b the judgment or the appellate court It Is I necessary that he be brought beforl I It but whether this be accomplished by a hostile notice from the appellant or by voluntary appearance nnd waving I wav-ing of notice Is I Immaterial I In cither I care th court has Jurisdiction nnd all the parties are bound by Its Judgment When the respondent Is I properly before be-fore the court and Insists that a codefendant co-defendant ban Interests which will be Injuriously affected by a reversal or I mo llnton ot the judument he has no right to complain at the manner In when Jurisdiction of such codefendant codefend-ant Is I obtained The court then orders that the motion mo-tion to dismiss be I denied Th case I will now be submitted on i lilt recalls at the net term or court The opinion I written uy Justice Ilartch and concurred In I by Chief Justice Jus-tice Zane and Justice 311ner |
