Show SUPREME GOU COURT T TI GIVES I tS OPINION Affirming the Judgment of the Lower Tribunal for fer vs Moyer A MINING STOCK DISPUTE to 10 7 DO Stilt Said I I he Wa n Wrong III g I The 1 court today t nn aim II opinion the he Jung ment of if time the lower r court In time the case caso o of ot Joseph Jo eph against lea Oco leav W v Moyer The Tho action was to tu recover 2690 to tobe toh be it h due II plaintiff on account for f his hil 01 11 In lit II n a mining in I ii i mug stock trans transaction I ia us action H IL I was wal alleged by h In lit two counts count that th he Ito bought Lower for defend defendant Mammoth other stock lint ant of itt the time total of at o about n that defendant paid hint him Im on flus Ol ac ar account li count 2501 OI hut but hit refused to pay time the er mu nil I lit Will wa s compelled ci led in lii cell el the tho stock lock In iii II order to 10 secure the balance In ii cc of or tho II tim mi price Defendant refused to 10 pay pa the tho hat hal balmier alice mier nl 1 of o the purchase prICe rl o and tutu nl the tho C I Ii mm on i ni th Ihl t hit t hut t plain fl tT t I if fi ut lid U icum ti misrepresented rese Ito tho I anti condition of the tock Mock tIC to tl him him hima a mm ii thereby th I im ri defendant ci I tho th C los I ass of n it eln money H It I was vas further Hinted sI RI I it 1111 toil I plaintiff I lit i if wn as Instructed i mist to In sell ReU the t ii e stuck Mock Iud at nt a I price Iut which lm would 14 Riven defendant u mu profit on 01 It I hut but buthe he Iw to IC tt follow tilt out olt time the Instructions Tho rho lower court coUll rendered Judg Judgment inept ment in iii favor fo nf of o plaintiff for or the Iho sum sumo nf of o TI 55 The judgment was wan not hot en cut entered cl t by 1 tl 1 clerk of or Ir the court until uit a it I jear al oCtet after It rims WOI rendered when It was n entered nunc 11 pro lIre mimic as of or Into of or KM its itsIe rendition Ie rut I t Ion On 0 mm a pea I the Ito I a i in mm t contended ca mm te ted that tho the court erred Irrell In lit II not mint compelling tho thes th plaintiff to 10 elect upon which of or tho the two counts coil lit mi In III I it I complaint pin I mm t he it e put 11 to tet go KO to trial mini and also alHo tint thit tho court oU ut erred In III I i u a uig thy th I Ii i judgment j u ii I nunc tune time the pro 1111 ro over ocr lons of o defendant In La tint opinion ii in it of 0 the th I he u Inc till court un unwritten written by hy Justice Ju McCarty anti and eon con concurred cUrd In by b Chief Justice and amid District Judge Armstrong It I IK iii limit hell that weight of t authorities supported tho the admit action of o the Ih rial mini court In lit 11 tho time two Iwo instanced relied upon for u ii 1 movers revers reversal leer al iii II While hulo there hero was quite a conflict III In the th evidence In iii tilt the 1 COmiC case still tho the supreme court holds halls that time tho Jury de tie determined the tho facts fael according to tho the t submitted nt at Ct time the trial h ence the Iii Ih e finding Il I ml g should not nt be he dis disturbed ii is The Cue Judgment of I the tho lower 1011 court Is lit therefore 11 affirmed with costs |