OCR Text |
Show THE SUPREME COURT DOCKET FOR NEXT TERM OF COURT The February term of th Supreme Court will commence next Monday. Cases are set for argument a follow : Febrnary 11. State, respondent, ts. James, appellant; appel-lant; First district. 8tat ex rel Peart et al., plaintiff, Third Judicial District Court; original In re application of Thomas Marion-eaux Marion-eaux for a writ of mandate against State Board of Examiners; original. Febrnary 12. Owens, appellant, ts. San Pedro, Los Angeles A Salt Lake Railway company, respondent; Third district. Houtz, appellant, vs. Union Pacific, respondent; Second district. Fell, respondent, vs. Union Pacific, appellant; ap-pellant; Second district. Febrnary 13. Salt Lake Investment companv, respondent, re-spondent, vs. Fox, appellant; Third district. dis-trict. Chrigteneen, appellant, vs. Beehe, Sheriff of Emery county, respondent; Seventh district. O'Neill, appellant, vs. Ogden Aerie of Eagles et al., respondent; Second dis- trict. February 14. Birdsall. appellant, vs. Leavitt et al., respondents; Sixth district. O'Laughlin, respondent, vs. Union Pacific, Pa-cific, appellant; Second district. Call, respondent, vs. Union Pacific, appellant; ap-pellant; Second district. February 15. Fugrmire. respondent, vs. Oregon Short Line, appellant; Third district. San Pedro. L. A. S. L. R. R. Co.. appellant, ap-pellant, vs. Board of Education of Salt Lake Citv. respondent; Third district. Felt, respondent. v. Salt Lake City, appellant; Third district. February 18. Kimball rt al . rf-spondents. vs. Salt Lake Citv. appellant; Third district. Hemnstead, repondent. vs. Salt Lake Citv, appellant; Third district. tVilson, respondent, vs. Wilson et al., appellant"; First district. February 19. freddes et al.. appellant, vs. North Ojjden Irripntion company et al., respondents; re-spondents; Second district. Farnsworth, respondent, vs. Union Pacific Coal company, appellant; Third district. Peterson, respondent, vs. Bullion Beck A: champion Nfininjj company, appellant; appel-lant; Fifth district. February 20. Kirk, respondent, vs Salt Lake Citv, appellant; Third district. Stone, administrator, respondent, vs. j Union Pacific, appellant; Second district. dis-trict. ( Two cases. S February 21. Jot."s. appellant, vs. oden et a!., re-Ispondcnt; re-Ispondcnt; Second district. 1 Mver. respondent, vs. Fat Branch Irrigation company, appellant; Sixth district. Brvanf. respondent, vs Kunkle ct al , Bpp'-llant: Third district, i February 25. I Culmer. appellant, vs. Salt Lake City, 'respondent; Third district, J F-i -d rc . t . appellant. v Widdison et al.. ' respondents; Second district. Wasnt' h .rchnrd rumpanv. respond en. v. Morgan Candv companv, appellant appel-lant ; Secon 1 district, j February 26. Robert". appellant vs. RraTet. re-! re-! yp. indent; Seventh district. ! Riddle et al.. r-st indents, vs. Quinn, 'appellant; Third district. I'onovan. appellant, vs Hsnsuer. trustee, trus-tee, respr.ndenf ; Third district, i February 27. Teak'e. a t-n i -i i-f ra t ri x. appellart. vs. San Pedro. 1.. A. & S 1., R. R. Co.. respondent re-spondent ; Th ' rd dit net Knj;'-r;. al . api-eMart". v Rio Ornrd' W. m. r. -p- r l.-r.t ; Third d:s-tri d:s-tri t. Skeen. app lbnt. vs Browning- respondent re-spondent ; Second district. February 28. Rp hards, appe!art. s Smith, trustee 1 iin trust, r e p o n ! n : Third district J |