OCR Text |
Show PLAINTIFFS WIN THEIR CASES The case of C P. Utter against the Utah Association of Credit Men and that of R. C Lundy against J. H. Kurtz, trustee of the Ogden Canyon Sanitarium company and Churles II. 1 arton, receiver, being to similar In fact and questions ,f l..v, Judge Howell has hunded down n decision on them in one memorandum. The plaintiffs In both inrtances are awarded award-ed judgments. In the first case the Utter Drug company niide nn assignment for tho benefit of creditors to the defendant, defend-ant, the plaintiff being er.'ploycl by tne company ns manager and clerk, 0 id he was also president of the drug company until the time of the assignment assign-ment He commenced suit against tne assignees, the defendants in tbU fctiou, to recover the amount of his snary. claiming to be a preferred creditor under the law. In the other case Lundy was employed em-ployed by the Ogden Canyon Sanitarium Sani-tarium as assistant manager. The company went Into the hands of a ivcelver. to whom the plaintiff presented pre-sented his claim for a balance du: Kt services .is assistant manager, tj which the defendant, J. H. Kurtz, trustee, filed objections. The court f rdered that tho claim bo reduced to a judgment and mat the judgment should be paid by the receiver as a preferred claim. Aside from being 'm ployed as assistant manager foi 'he Ogden Sanitarium company the 1 I.iintiff was a director and vice-president vice-president of the company. In both cases the court holds that the alleged services were rendered and t.at the services were not paid for in fall, further holding that the plaintiffs plain-tiffs In both cases were preferred creditors of the defunct companies It Is also set forth in tho memorandum mem-orandum that although the plaintiffs were managers ;ind ofticers of lh-t tompauy by whom they were employed, em-ployed, yet it was shown in the trluln that they did other work, of a manual nature, which entitles them to the benefits of the law regarding preferred pre-ferred creditors. It was shown in Uio testimony, the court states, that in the first instance "the plaintiff was everything from janitor to manager f.nd In the latter everything from laborer lab-orer to assistant manager, and their menial duties, while perhaps not as important, were as necessary, ns their other duties. "It seems to the court, therefore, that both plaintiffs are eutitled to recover, re-cover, the plaintiff in the first case tLe amount thut is admitted to bo duo him and the plaintiff in tho see-.nd see-.nd case the amount he claims, les-f $lii0 for the time he was iibent, during dur-ing the period for which ho claims sal-r sal-r ry." - |