| Show ANOTHER DECISION NEWS hs has reached this city of the deul doul decision slon of the supreme court of itie ine united states in the suit euit brought by the heirs of the cain estate for possession of the valuable piece of property in this thia city known as the th emporium corner it la well weil known that our enterprising merchant mr wm jennings held poss post session of the property for many yeam years and had bad spent many thousands ads of dollars in improvements upon it before the claim now disposed of was waa presented preben ted but the heirs of mr joseph cain who had occupied pi a portion of the lot on its so bouth south uth bides sides side laid qaid claim to the whole corner I 1 when hen the townsite town bita sita was entered rhe fhe probate court decided in favor of mr jennings Jen ninga and the parties s from whom he purchased and on appeal to the third district court judge Et emeron nenion sustained the deci hsiou of the court below bulow the p case ase wms wua then taen taken to uhe supreme court ef of the territory and as the law late president brigham young was t bbown bown to have had bad an interest in thes this matter malter before mr jennings jennino purebred kedit it the prejudices af the court were allowed to affect the cabe case end and adjudge nd Judge boreman rendered an giving the tho whole property to the cain heirs judge t mala ined the decision but emerson did not no t gen gon an brai bral was felt at the ruling aa as the title had remained undisputed for so many years and sj mitic MILIC 14 money ey bad been expended in the erection upon it of lial and permanent buildings mr jennings jend Jenu lugs carried the case up to the court of last which haa baa decided exactly in accordance with the original adjudication of the probate court courts giving to the cain heirs what thoy they lawfully owned the tho ground which is occupied by the stores of auerbuch and callahan and reversing the boreman and schaeffer Bc decision this will be viewed with satisfaction and pleasure by the bulk of the people here as a simple act of justice and the overturning of a ruling founded on prejudice and wrong once more the supreme court of the united statts hae bao bbown the fallacy of the decisions of the supreme court of utah and one more proof is to offered to the public of the lack of judgment or j justice ustice or both which the latter court has so exhibited the title to the property will I 1 soon be firmly noth noih I 1 ing remains unsettled in relation to it except that which iles lies b be tween the parties and balt salt lake like city corporation which there h 3 no doubt can be settled without to litigation as neither parti party desires anything but what la Is lav law ful fui auland and proper we congratulate mr Jenn inga loga on this thia favorable settlement of a cause in which hi be was decidedly on the alde aide of right since writing the above we havi have b been een favored with a copy of the telegram from washington giving particulars of 61 the decision it readi reada as s follows ithe the U united states supreme court has decreed that th the a decree of the territorial supreme court in this cause 1 reversed and thir ilir cause caute la is remanded to baud imia court with instructions first to jo en enter enteria terIn in the proper court a judgment in favor of george and samuel string fellow for that part of the lot purchased by them at the tn toes tor sale asale second te to enter a j judgment in favor of the app appellees appel ellees lees leea according to their respective inhere interest sti under their inheritance from joseph cain for that part or the south bouth half halt of the premises in contro controversy verby veray not sold to stringfellow and king dib dit sing their claiman claim as to all the rest and residue of the lot third to rehear the case upon the evidente evidence evide ncr sent up from he the district court b h respect to the claims of jennings Jenn Jerin ilip ingi and young as against the corporate authorities of salt lake city and decide according to the justice of the case oatle the appellants are arbor or dered the costs of this appeal |
