| OCR Text |
Show the recovery of tho $5.457 24 was dismissed, dis-missed, on the ground of the' illegality of the contract. This appeal was taken to tho supreme court. The higher court holds that the contract on which tho suit was based was valid, and that Judge Booth therefore there-fore erred In barring evidence offered under It. Tho contract, so far as the Utah statutes are concerned. Is valid, and. therefore, enforcible. jr there had been a profit Instead or a Iosj. the court says, the appellants would not have been heard to complain. The appellants were John W., Francis Fran-cis and George White and Frank Rouse, and the respondents, Nathan b Snell, William Finch, David Morgan ami William P. Okelberry. administrator administra-tor of Ihe estate of P. Okelberry. The capitalization of the company was $lo.-000. $lo.-000. divided Into as many shares, valued val-ued at $1 each. In another opinion, written also by Justice Frlck and concurred In by tho other Justices, tho supreme court do-nled do-nled tho application of the town ot Garland in Box Elder county, for a writ of mandate against Judge W. W. Maughn to vacate an order dismissing an appeal, reinstate the case and hear it. Joseph OrgU and John F. Owens were found guilty in tho Justice's court of Box Elder precinct on July 28. 190S, with violating the ordinances of Garland, and were fined, but appealed appeal-ed to the district court of Box Elder county on tho ground of lack of Jurisdiction Juris-diction of the justice's court of Garland, Gar-land, which is in tho Sunset precinct, while the alleged offense was committed commit-ted in another precinct Judge Maugbn dismissed the case, and the supreme su-preme court holds that such cases must bo tried in the justice's court of the precinct in w-bich the offense is alleged to have been committed, and upholds Judge Maugba. IMPORTANT RULING BY SUPREME COURT Majority Stockholders in Corporations May Form Combines, Says Tribunal. There is nothing In the Utah statutes stat-utes to prevent majority stockholders in a corporation from forming combinations combin-ations or making agreements against minority stockholders, and the courts will not interfere in such eases unless un-less it is shown that fraud or coercion coerc-ion has been practiced or duress lu-duccd, lu-duccd, the supreme court holds. In an opinion handed down Monday In tho case of John W. White and others, appellants, ap-pellants, against Nathan E. Snell and others, for alleged breach of contracts. The opinion written by Justice Frlck and concurred in by the other Justices, Jus-tices, is of far-reaching importance in Utah. In some states such combinations combina-tions or agreements are prohibited by statute, but there is nothing to the contrary in the statutes of Utah, and if the acts of such combinations or agreements are not illegal, the courts may not interfere. The facts were these: On August 1, 1904, the appellants agreed to place tho control ot ninety-three shares or stock Valued at $9,300, which they owned in the Goshen Mill and Elevator Eleva-tor company, in the hands of the respondents re-spondents for a period of nearly three years, or until January, 1907. The respondents agreed not to vote tho slock for assessment or indebtedness purposes and were to pay $25 a month rental for the stock and all assessments assess-ments against it. In the handling of the business tho respondents created an indebtedness of ?8.803. 35, for which their creditor obtained Judgment, aud tho appellants were compelled to pay $5,457.24 of the judgment indebtedness. The appellants brought suit for alleged al-leged breach of contract, and the respondents re-spondents answered that the Indebtedness Indebt-edness was properly incurred In tho management of the business, nnd further fur-ther elected to treat the contract with the respondents aa repudiated, on the ground that It was against public policy pol-icy and, thereforo, void, in the trial court objection was made to the introduction intro-duction of evidence under the complaint, com-plaint, on the ground that tho contract upon which It was based was void, and Judge Booth sustained the objection. The defendants in tho trial, who are the respondents in the upper court, admitted ad-mitted owing a balance or $275 rental for the use of the stock, and, with their consent, Judgment for this amount was entered against them as to the stock rents, and tho suit, as to |
