Show DISTRICT COURT REVERSED I Court Cour I Down hug In Iii Another Ol I Tho Time supreme court has buns answered the questions put before buforo it In relation to the hut certiorari proceedings of or L L I P Lund against Ellen Elon Ivers Ivere which line HRS the time district court In such a n pro pie proceeding tho the right to go behind tIme the faco face of or the abstract and d Inquire Into matters presented to It I on omm a mero mo motion moton lIon tion ton 7 The answer of ot the time Justices of ot tho supreme court Is negative The Tho history of 01 tho the caso case Is somewhat unique Two years ago ngo an abstract of Judg Judgment jut ment Ien from tIm 11 Justices court ut at Mur Murray Murray ray my was filed tol In tho the Fourth district court at nt Provo Prove the tho Judgment being in favor of Lund as ns against Mrs Ivers Ivors I Mrs Ivers ivere then entered tho the I court with wih n ft motion to t cnn can cancel cel the tho tiling filing and asking that hat It I be b vacated Her ground fOr r r action nelon was WM that she Bhe had hud never nover heard of tho time ac action acton action tion ton being brought In tho the Murray Murry court cour She also pleaded that she was nuner Indebted to Lund Iun Her motion l was grunted granted Lund Ina Lil took lila his case to 10 the th supreme Court The supreme court says that the tho thedo docketing do of the Judgment In the time Fourth district court did not give that court cout Jurisdiction of or the action aelon In Iii which tho lie Judgment was WM rendered The Time supreme court orders order the Judge of orth tho th Fourth district court to annul the order cancelling tho the tiling fIling JUng of or the Judg Judgment ju judgment ment the abstract having been heen In con conformity cn with the tho statutes |