| Show STEVENS CITY CASE DECIDED BY JUDGE COX judge cox rendered ills his decision in the case brought by dr R B stevens against fillmore city for the collection ot of certain special improvement district warrants held by dr stevens the alie original suit claimed tho the sum of 0 plus interest bioni the date of 0 tiling filing in 1932 in arriving at this sum the plaintiff contended that he was entitled to interest on past due interest and fail ailed to apply certain payments made as payments of principal the memorandum of the decision rendered by judge cox is as follows in this case the court finds that special tax warrants no 1 and 2 of fillmore Fill moro city tor for the sum of 0 and respectively were duly and regularly issued tor for special improvements and special improvement districts duly and regularly cheated in accordance with the laws ot of the state of 0 utah and the ordinances of 0 fellmore city the court further finds that special tax warrant no 1 is payable as follows llata list due annually for five years commencing jan 10 1919 and the last payment being 0 on n jan 10 1923 and that special tay tax warrant no 2 0 Is payable as follows lists 92 10 payable annually commencing jau jan 10 1919 with the last of the tha five payments on jon 10 1923 the court further finds that tho the warrants carried interest at the rate of six per cent per annum with interest at eight per cent per annum on any principal payments not paid when due the court further finds that on february ath 1918 before any ln in terest was due a payment of 13 was made which the defendant was entitled to credit as principal that there eatter on july ath 1919 interest of was paid on jan 10 1921 in interest was paid on january 18 1921 2520 in interest was paid jan 10 1922 was paid jan 10 1923 was paid on interest on october ath 1926 principal paid on july 3 1929 interest of was paid the court further tends finds that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the first principal payment due january 10 1919 on the amount of principal not paid by that date from and after that date at the rate of eight per cent and interest on the principal payments that tell fell due each year thereafter at the rate of eight per cent after crediting the principal with an any excess paid in interest payments the court further finds that the plaintiff Is not entitled to interest upon unpaid interest that the defendants fend fead ants have paid total payments in the amount of on said obligations under this decision an estimate of the amount now due dr stevens Is la in the neighborhood of less than claimed in the suit attorneys E vance wilson and claude F baker represented the tha defendants fend ants and attorneys 0 L huntsman and A 11 II hougaard represented dr stevens Sl ovens |
