OCR Text |
Show FOUR OPINIONS BY SUPREME COURT Four opinions, two affirming district dis-trict eourt judgments and two ordering order-ing the issuance of writs against the district courts, were rendered by the supreme court yesterday. A written opinion along the lines indicated by Chiel Justice MeCarty In a verbal decision from the bench j several days ago, was rendered in tin-case tin-case of the Union Savings & Invest-1 ment company against the district' court. The district court is restrain ed from hearing the suit brought bv Albert Fisher, a stockholder, against I the company, for the appointment of a receiver. The supreme court takes the view that a stockholder with a complaint against such a compauy must seek ! redress through the secretary of state and the attorney general. A writ is ordered isued against Judge M L. Ritchie directing him to hear the appealed case of the Salt Lake Coffee & Spice company e tigrtiuoi vjeorge aturm. j ne district court bad refused to hear the appeal from the justice court on the ground that the justice court had no jurisdiction jurisdic-tion and consequently the district bad none. The supreme court holds a contrary view. Another opinion affirms the judgment judg-ment of the district court in the case of William Pack against Ira D. Wined and Mrs. Wines. Pack sued to recover recov-er for services rendered as an architect archi-tect for the defendants. |