Show Lost in J CouL t i V I k i j jI I I Maor of Ogden O Was IVas 1100 i and Costs in ii II IIa Tip a Lowr Court tint 1311 iIa flod tip IlIa 1 Judgment ici and emd Orders O ders Dismissal in II ii Favor FC or of Ogden City GI I The court this illa morning re reversed 11 reVersed versed ors the nt of ot tm thia th lower lowr court In 11 the tho case at ut John A i lloy 1011 va a 8 Ogdon City CI Ihl respondent Hoyle brought nn al action Ogden city to recover lecover 00 to lii be due Ilu him for tor ns us al mayor of at the thu eliy 01 Atthe At tho the line he lie was wan wn elected the thi tl ml sal 81 salary ary nry of ot tin II office olilee was R i fl li r annum but tho the round soon noon after atol tim tho new ne mayor Inor took look his hil thee pouted an nn mice reducing mayors salary to 10 1600 Go Per pur 1101 year ear The Flip ordinance was wan signed nut approved by the tue Hut Jut when alien lila Ills term trl h he sued for differ III slits nce elce In iii amount between th tue two tWI ai salaries sal I aries ariD und end ans M judgment for 1 1 liml linel COlb COlbAn v An At appeal from that thai Judgment was wan taken tolen to tha tho supreme court ami oh tho ho opinion of at that I court holds that the Ihl act of tho mayor maor In iii amid approving thy the orilin once ancl to wn an nn l to an alY agaInst tho Iho lie city elLy ely tom for additional Il i salary 1111 In iii the lie of ot a n new nell agreement with wih tho thu said city to serve sen rl a an 1 11 n ni nfl num nuni mayor 1101 for tor tho lie sum cain UI of oC C C per ier an annum ni It I la Is that the Judgment jl be lie benet I net 11 aside and ald that a a Judgment lt of die dis dismissal Ii missal bo IJO entered In Iii favor of ut II appellant t Ogden n City y Thief Chlof Jl lo Miner anti ami anI I I Justice concur In the hue Ihl decision I |