| Show CO FURN FURNITURE ITURE CASE OPINION TODAY The Supreme court today handed down three opInions tM the artt otis oae III Ia the cut cue of Samuel IL ra vs Salt Lake county This II an important cue case involving In county warrant I Liy II the oW county court away back Ui 1 1154 on a contract snide macle with Abd Andrews Co or of Chicago b by the In III for tor the half of ef the JoInt buildIng The Th war warrants I Irant rants rant were transferred by Com Company piny to the respondent who p pre rented them for pam payment nt which was wae refused on the part ot of the county count this being after the tbt charges charlE of fraud had bad been alleged In Ionn connection llon with thIs dell deal The subsequent county clAimed that thaI I a conspiracy had been Sn n Into between thIs furniture corn com piny pany and the old members of the Ih coun I court by which the county fraud fraudulently paid a great feat deal more for tor the goods than the they were ere worth etc and that thaI time present bolder ot of tile the warrants took look them with full ot of these anti antt on these grounds payment was resisted Suit WI was brought In th the lower court which held that inasmuch as al the COUll U I elected to 10 retain the furnIture that Illat Andrews A Compan might recover for its III value alue and as al respondent bought the warrants for value that he be wu was en An And Andrens tithed tilled to recover on en whatever claim drens d wI t Company had and thu Jude Jud with tn f terest from February U II Ut 1115 at c nt Judge Judie Hartch the opinion Judges tiner and Balkin concurrIng POll FOlt t BOY BOYThe The next de decision l lon was wal In iii the cut eisa ot of J Beaman plaintiff and aneS respondent The Mining vs 1 com company an and appell t The action was brought In the district court kIllIng ot of othi b by fleaman for the hi his minor son by company In its mIne It 11 is II claimed by III the taut tauter pr er that thaI the boy was 11 hired to do cheres around th works work at al th the top of th the mine but that Ihal the had sent enl him don dean In tile the mint mine to perform some Ime work and time the bor bo nut not bel being underground workings was with the through the of the company killed The Th jury jUr In Ih the court urt below gave a plaintiff judgment fr fir damal trial was Wat d and un n fr for na n Iff 4 ot of the upon verdIct and the defendant appealed p leeS JUll Mart Hart of f acting alln as one ot Ill tb Ib the Supreme Ito Ibe judgment ol at the low lowr lower lon inn which was Ial In by er r court Judges and Cherry REMANDED An A n opinion wu was also lIand handed d down In of MiMe 1111 O plaintiff it rat Ale William S I Reed d de is 1 and appellant and lives In Ogden Orden k that on W Ode a m In m and Ind hr 21 she mias 11 by duress J to II execute a It through rc uh fear 1100 valued It at her to tl hI he nd its 11 tt it to one line con In Int inthe tu to have haj her fit of grand charge harle a on t the hf this deed did not If she he lam lar 0 fly withoUt any my N consideration Jl was 31 was wat plaintiff Ih time court In the lower lid ad the ground that she he on dud deed fr for the the 1 she vf of a felony and In pin parI t therefore Ih was U that Mr Rd This nt Ju lath the Ihl with avid the case Calt re me WaS aP tt trI with In ID trIll court ort lb the back buk to 10 ot at atthe with the trial t 1 81 by Judge the case Balkin The and In by Judge Miner |
