Show f MRS ANNIE HILTON WINS EA nun I f Supreme Court Upholds Her in Suit Against Heirs of I. I Park l L S SEEKS EKS A THIRD OF ESTATE t t. t S In Another o Ca Can Cae t to Recover Widows Widow's w 4 t Sold Court De- De r L t I dills cities iu Her Against J t cr I 1 I tj Mrs MIrE rB Annie F. F F. F A. A Hilton Hnton in the tho Supreme Su Su- preme pren court opinion ha handed down r. us rJ won o a 0 signal victory In her S a appeal ii l of if the he e suit brought b by her If u George W. W Thatcher an and oth- oth ei l was decided against her In In tho district court The opinion holds f. f that t 1110 the o trial court erred In dismissIng dismiss dismiss- 1 r Ing th the action when It sustained the tho I dr- dr demurrer of or the defendants anti and re- re mandR tho the cause caulo for COl or new trial in acc aci accordance ac ac- ac- ac i c with the opinion In Mrs lr c. Hiltons Hilton's other case however she was wa defeated in tho the Supreme court the court coult holding that In dismissing sing the suit brought by her against S. S W. W i j St wart executor of estate of John U. U Park deceased the tho court was WOH not riot wf in error the appeal therefore being ml ed cd with tho the costs taxed against suits stilts out the appellant Both grew k of or th the celebrated Hilton Park contro- contro t y which arose out of tho contest I made inath by the tho Park heirs regarding the validity of or the celestial marriage contract u of the Mormon ormon church rw rhO first ca case o c. c in Iii which Mrs Irl Hilton Is the plaintiff find and George W. W Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher That- That cher is the original defendant and Robert W. W Sloan Nellie M. M T. T moll Blair and S rl tI T. T 1 Lynch Luch are aIe substituted in lI lieu u ut th the tho l defendants Is 1 ono on In which Mrs Hilton sou sought ht to cover re-cover interest or 01 portion POI por fr lion tion of the estate of or John It Park t d dt ou d. d which had been disposed ot otI I by 13 him n without having secured her herL L p nt to the transfer C r. r f After Aft l the tho suit stilt had hod been begun gun DeY De- De Y fondant Thatcher Tha hell died and the tho other othol ih d defendants f succeeded to III the property I a iiA heirs J 11 r i as I p 1 Parks Park's Lawful tul Wife n n Important factor in was the uie opinion of if the court f. f which had hull b been n g- g given cn several elal years ears prior r to the tho commencement ment of this r Suit hull in which lt was hel held l bat t Mrs limon Hilton was the lawful wife wIre of John II Ro Park In aIng been married to him by what is kno known in the Sf Jesus Jelus Christ of oC the I I. I day Latter Saints F as ng agthe the celestial marriage ceremony This marriage was performed at the time Mrs Irs Hilton was vas thou though h to be bo In In her last sickness and at that time In her he deathbed When this case was fought out In the district courts and andIn In tho thu Supreme court tho the proceedings were vere looked 1 upon tipon with great reat Interest rest In th s city as it was recognized that p the decision lon of th the higher tribunal l would set down clown a ruo that hat would be biding in ma many n other ither cases ca caes es 0 of ik at looked 1 wore wet upon as likely to again arise in the courts of C r t this his state talc because Use of tho the peculiar coh- coh l CO et obtaining obtaining In Utah It was upon the strength of or this opinion op op- op- op f Inton of th the tho Supreme court that Mrs 1 Hilton bas based ll her rights to commence i v suit uit against l Thatcher and tho the other i defendants an and the admission of ot this i tl decision a as a proof of oC marriage was one of r th the strongest gest points in iii tho the case 1 Demurrer Entered fl M g When the the case caso came lP up for trial in rt the thc district court a d demurrer general ic an and specific wa was vas entered by the defendants der de de- de- de r A fondants which set sel that in her up UI p complaint com corn 5 plaint Mrs Hilton did not state facts S to constitute a n. cause of or action aeI ac ae- ac- ac I tim tion and that tho the action was barred 5 by the statute of oC limitations Imitations Section S 2859 R. R S. S Utah 1898 1 being cited This demurrer was sustained b by the trial court and the case was dismissed The Tue ground for the appeal was t tak taken ken k- k en n upon this decision of oC tho the court and It was upon this question that tho the Su Supreme Supreme Su- Su S preme court opinion handed down yesterday yesterday yes yes- ter ruc ruled The opinion which Is written I b by b Justice Prick Frick and concurred In by Iy Chief Justice McCarty l and Justice holds that the action clearly cleath Is not barred by th the tho statute of limita limita- Upon the question as to the plaintiffs plaintiff's cau e of action the opinion holds that the common law on dower S prevailed pre In Utah from 1887 until Jan- Jan 1 when whon the Statutes Statutes Stat- Stat 1898 Revised Re 4 utes went Into force Section 2826 the court holds created no new right of oC lower dower but declared tho the existing right Prior to 1898 the widow was tM entitled to third one of or tho the hu husbands husband's bands band's property for life liCe hut but after attel Section 2826 went Into effect sh sho was entitled to to-a to a a. one Interest In In fee Therefore Therefore Therefore There There- fore at the time Park Parle sold tho the property prop- prop f ily erty to Thatcher Mrs 1 Hilton had an interest in It to the extent of or her dower Jewel S Judgment JUlI tl nt d The fhe opinion of tho the court hol holds 18 that court crrea ln sustaining thy the demurrer do- do un and entering its judgment dinS dis dismissing din din- 11 ml missing the case The opinion r re reverses S v verses ef the judgment ment an and reman remands tho the ca causo so for Cor trial with the direction to the tho S lower court to vacate Its Judgment 61 f dismissal I. I reinstate tho the case eme overrule S th the tue de demurrer nurr l' l and aud to proceed with the case ease according to this decision The Tho title of the tho other case cae upon I 5 which a decision lon was reached b by th the Supreme court yesterday Is In Iii tho the theL r. r L Matter Mat l' l of oC the tho Estate of of John R. R Park I deceased asell Annie F. F A. A Hilton Petitioner Peti Honor and Appellant against S. S Pot W. W t S Stewart Respondent In this case the opinion briefly revl reviews reviews re- re vl views ws the action stating that in the theA i A complaint med Hied by the appellant In Inthe L. L the the district court sh she set up that the thel l' l will of or John R. R Park Parl d deceased was r r admitted 1 to probate October 20 20 O. O and that S S S' W. W y Stewart was duly apI appointed ap- ap I s pointed executor that sho she and John 11 I. Park Parl were Intermarried In this city December c C G. G 1872 that between J March larch 15 15 1387 and January IG 16 1894 F the said Hald John R. R Park sol sold various I Ip parC parcels H of or real property without her p joining Jn In L the tho or rehn- rehn her interest In tho the same that r r t she he alleged the he the value of third one of aC I r the property thus thUi sold to be I that S. S W. W Stewart holds hols as CX executor of Qt tho the value ue of out outS S of oC which she he might b bo be compensated Entitled to tu Share The rile opinion of the court cites its Us former orm 1 opinion decreeing h her r th the 1 John R. R and andr f widow of the late Pork Park r- r entitled f to a a. widows widow's share of or his otate oJ In the trial of f the C case In Inthe the lower 1 court S. S W. W Stewart entered a 0 demurrer de de- de- de g general noral and specific setting t ur up UT that there vas there was not aJl gatlon of or fats facts sufficient to cons cause of or S action This hiSs demurrer cr was sustained 5 b w V i a I hy 13 y the trial court It was upon this Joint that tho the error of the the court court was wast t u am and Upon which th the opinion ru rules I es The rho opinion cites th the former opinion in n ll the Uw matter of Annie F. F A. A Hilton against George Gore W. W Thatcher et al I Ill iid then rules that Section 2826 R. R I S S. x Utah 1898 d does es not nOl confer conCer upon a i widow the right to take tho the value Of He f ht her r Interest t In tho the hu husbands husband's lands out ut of his estate The opinion holds that hInt the tIle trial court did not err Clr In sustaining sus sus- us- us taming th the demurrer dismisses the appeal ap ap- ap peal Ial und and taxes the costs cost against the appellant I |