| Show I U UNIQUE I CONTRACT VALID VALlO Court Hanl Hands D Down In Cal Case RII Thai Ju Judge OF met e n I iii the I t tw w 0 in 0 littler M 1144 1 0 0 In an n opinion baad banded down te dy day t by the Ipe supreme onset tt It WA was de e cl elated tbt that stockholders old may y combine nd ma mabs agreements without t the knol knowledge o of tb the others minority o or to control t the affairs of a corporation tn unless fr fraud UI duress w wee shown bown I It was ou painted ot out bove however that In man manI many I states t this w was 11 Illegal sad Ut Utah I had D so such u statute t ute The decisIon In Inthis th this ease wU will alt S a number o of suite now pending 1 II In t the Cm coUrts wb where ak stock ho holler a ate attempting to aure secure cm ages other shareholders and In pf cOInto T The opinion was given In the ease of Jon John W WIt WhIt l Francis la White Oe White Ite end Prank no Rouse A rn alf Nahn Nathen K R elI duell William Pinch and Wila William nc an of the state tato of P reversing the of the lower court and nd grantIng an a new trl trial the recovering cuts The Ibe appellants who owne owned N 5 sha share of tock stock In the XI Mill ad and Eleva EIva Elevator tor company ente entered lt Into a contract with tt thus respondents giving them cn con control o of t the Ik stock on Aug 1 lI 1104 Under this contract however the dents had bad n no right to al sell the stork and were to py pay 25 5 a month for the theus us use of the stock and nd IY pay an any assess mont ment which ml might ht h be mad made on tb the stock n The were director of the company and nd with th thee sheres hlll the they controlled the attain of the c car porton While this contract was In fole force the company was wa declared Insl insolvent vent ad and t the property was wa 14 sold on nn a Judgment of 13 Ot Of thIs amount the appellants were el required to pay They sued the respondent 41 Tey for thIs amunt amount for 25 rental which was due on the stock tok The lower court held Id that the contra contract was a void old but the respondents to top pay U the appellants the rental The p supreme curt court hed held that although the contract eg U that It w wee valid The decision w was written by Justice TrIck and nd concurred In b by Chief Jua Ju tlc and Ju Justice U McCarty lS iS rt 1 a 14 II Iti Qa Oso A wrt writ ot of mandate asked ke by th the town of ant Jud Judge W W Manghan to him to release an aan rul 1 order Im an appeal and reIn reInstate ae state a c case and hr hear Ip It w was died denied I In Inan no an opinion hand handed dow down y r b by bythe the w warn a against 01 Ogil ad sad Jo John F On Owens wo Who wr were charged chad with disturbing the thep peace They were arrested te tre tried nod and p fud found guilty A lin fine w was bp but butan butan an appeal w was taken to the dao district tn crt court of Balder county count on th lb of lid and the lund grounds no JurIsdIctIon th facts did not nol constitute a public of tense The cour court sustained le the moio motion and dismissed t tO case caseIn In revIewIng tb the evidence U the su u prene court foul tt that Gla w was tn in pr precinct and ad th that te the imse W was tri tried In precinct w which I Is nearly 4 40 mi miles Iy away ad end not aJ adja adjacent cent nt to Sunset precinct The Tb appellant held beld that the case ens tn out of the precinct In which th the oel W was committed bu It Was believed that tbt tb the Justice ther there we I in with the offender The Th em court held hopr that the JurisdIction of I a court rt w waS set t forth In it eta ata lute tul and that tb the we punish oen h hr It wa WIS committed This Thill wu written by Jule Justice n tired In hy by hief lef ant Justice McCarty n 11 I J IIII bunt sl suet Other RII ON wee Ik Moon T I 1 I ford rord and wire and J 1 1 M 1 I 1 II 1 nit an answer yesterday tu to tuI toI I I I b by F J Senior I III IS II S P It letter lou sought ht t com Ci I I It t a dt deOul t to property u I it itI I 1 Olt under a t S I It warn 1 deeded h ht ly I 1 t to thu Ih to hold I I tr In hi his complaint I that the ot otI I r rt to J E B l to li IL liI ILI I t i in It hI his answer eta t fOrth I 1 I r a ut il r Ind ond pursued him with t tI I u it Ind attachment for the I I which WI was vall vain P 1 t Ild and ought nut t to 1 i iI I U I I 1 I 7 trIng ul I It Iti I Io o i Senior and I f It I r 1 0 re pann partners under th thu r F J Company I uk pIon ot of the In an c 15 UI 1905 and rd refused to Uw allow to use UP od Sy says that I lie paid mot most of t Ike ea expenses ot of the partnership and aad th that there Is 1100 1900 still due him He that the firms due him would Uy ud the of lb JaI land ClAiM U JI WIld Mak actor aNor w was summoned J Judge erdl In inthe the city court t to luw shoW why h he dId not nol to a which u lud Issued to him t to th attach the wM wages of laY Bon Who w was with alk 0 won It opened at al th the w Mack Wk tuck the std stand ad and said U that Jon had bed left leU hi his company gad drew nw b his wages before the thu I w was r aid After AUr t to Ike y 0 of l Manager OL which charged obe corroborated Mk Macks a story h he w was dim Tise original ju t wee ed fe is II in Nov O In favor tor Of C Chase for tur ro for labor Jabor on I at contract Th The jut po was turned over or to rancla G 0 Luk Luke fr for collection wo who ud tb lbs J T lit Mrs Eldridge cUr her br Wd I Y i I i a td second secondhand hand nd furniture dr dialer wish L I Ia in a lie flIed 7 In Ib usa Third Lu court q t to tho lh complaInt h he has invest 4 lb In hla hi hUlne a sad restless abl abla about a I Ii b h he as IbM an order or mc made hi from mourn Ium bering or or of his property n nh lbs h 11 ails for 5 a month alImony I sad aad sit 1 U t fees Ty w were mar rl tied jl t 3 I iNS |
