Show TWO OPINIONS DOWN Supreme Court Reverses Judg Judgment Judgment Judgment ment of Lower tribunal in Two Cases PERSONAL DAMAGE MATTER C 1 I i H Sum HUI tim of ut S I I uit 11 ci III lint I I lit X Not Two wore Velt handed down by b bythe the thu tl court today both of ut which were wel reversals of ot the 1 Judgments ten tendered 1011 dered by br iy the lower Fun Tho Judg julg Judgment ment In lii II llio c c of or the Iho estate of ot Wil William Il liam U 0 I II deceased Sed S H P Arm rm t a mitt I Ia iii e m li VA I W V Johnson J was WIS and Imd tIle tho cn e remanded with I lo I i 0 the t 1 lit lower luwI court 1 coti rL tn to pio 11 i II cred toimi Clell In II I n with wih ii the he I opinion op I ti iou iouI nf le I f the Iw t Ii s HUIro sit ii rein e court co tin Tim Tilts 11 action net I on onI Wuk I Ii t to 10 Hll 01 t lio tl e m ll I I V 1 li nu n 0 11 0 ii nil rust rim tor of it time the estate of ut William 0 n I Johnson mison IH tiN 11 of ot Iho lions jolla HOlK I lr 1111 n Heill Investment company applied Ii leil for tor tot tots of or ad in I ii 1st rat in a ait i upon it 1441 the 11 I ii e 0 ii that I Ii ii ii lit company COOl pail wan 11 creditor of ft tile the II estate Margaret H n sister of oC the tho who thio In iii WilIs ile later 11 filed led a n poll peti petition pol pollI foil tion tOI I that R 8 S P I be he bea appointed a lit eu a Ii i n 1st ia or Klin Sho S ha a objected bj to 10 i lie tho t t of ot Jolt John Johnon ii sop on Ol Tho fh lowr low I r court en it rt however hone ver ap au appointed pointed Johnson and attil Issued of uC administration It tI in I to Ii him ii it The lh e su e court holds ho Ida that t John uhn ii slim fun Mi applied a I I i tO for 01 lollI let t rd of If Ii f ltd administration in i ii lIlt tion tl before bero throe t litt months ii from list thu I listIi Math Ii C 11 of SIt Owen 0 wet the Iho th o limn I i iii In III which w ii thu Ihu t statute allows n I tint un Ihl t t I Ives 1111 ito ii next lex of 0 f 1 Itt 11 mm of ot tho Iho t lit deceased 1 to apply ii for or let I et I urn and it lid ni I a i he Ii h f o I I lIy I ly was WUK tint not u it 1 tn br of ot tint I II ho had hod Ihl o no 10 light t tI tn Il I 10 10 U t mit ed It I I t IK IN I a rim rt ii ei held heJI ti nt he lm h rena I ii ly had hit no tin right I In III I ii liot IId orenco C I to n a I Ii whose mit iii e itt imS led by I 11 a n relative lye who vImo had hlll ii ft I ii terest In I ii the t ii e of ot the he I e Iho limo action of nt the Iho lower court urt Is IH there thero 1010 Tho opinion of or tho the court cOll wan wall aa written by 11 Chief Justice Jt and amid lud concurred In lit by b Justices McCarty and amid 11 Tilt The other reversal of oC the tto lower court was tm I In the tho case cISe of o Carl J tIle the Southern Pacific company 01 Y appellant The Time action waw UI brought to 10 for tor personal er Injuries by plaintiff while employed li ii III unloading hl for tr defendant In lii Its Il yards at ul Ogden Oden on Feb I 1904 Tho I plaintiff III ti ft a lid I ii ii i I wiio 1 III In unloading ing battery houses from n it 1 tint Hat cur car I II and nl it mid lind hl d elected ii a i temporary platform for tor that Ihal put 1 lOe 1050 we Ont One nt of lt the tho trucks toil fell tel froth from this thU Ihl 11 ii a II ml severely I Injured ii plaintiff in I itt The he jury in lii Ihl lower court returned 1 a i In flor of jf plaintiff for tor ir 9 On appeal It wits was Wil contended by b the company that KB II i motion for tor nonsuit should have been heen granted by Die th lower Cohn as its I plaintiff had tailed failed to prove proc my negligence lIell on un the part of defend mt mint 1111 hence hind had no n right of ot The Tho ho danger connected with wih the Iho work 1 It t wan WM contended contel c was WS op 01 n 1 and no mind and plaintiff assumed the risk when he lie with thy the work Thu ne fh supreme court holds boils that hint the thin contention of itt It appellant IH is good and Ind i that hat time the lower court erred tn in not grunt grant 11 UK appellants nonsuit and further that hat plaintiff lout had no 10 right of or recovery 1111 ii time the circumstances Tho The Judge J go nent Is 14 reversed with Instructions to Ihl h lower loner court to 10 proceed In accord linen ince The Ill he opinion was IR writ len en eI by I Thief Chief Justice timid and con eon In iii by b the associate n Justices |