Show SALT LAKE MEWS supreme court net yesterday the supreme court met pursuant to adjournment yesterday with chief justice zane justice bartch and miner on the bench A goodly number of leading attorneys were present when court opened the first case called was that ot the deseret national bank vs W S burton et al appellant with Moyle zane appearing for appellants and moyle dickson for respondent spon dent action in the case was brought by the bank to reform a written guaranty as to make it cover past indebtedness as well as future loans and advances when the terms of the guaranty only included future loans and advances the case waa tried before judge cherry some time ago who rendered judgment against the defendants tor the amount sued for by the bank being the lower court reformed the guaranty and rendered judgment accordingly it was the only issue of tact before it the appeal 19 upon both questions of law and fact waterworks CASE the case of ogden city plaintiff and respondent ys the bear river irrigation ogden waterworks company jaryis conklin et al defendants and appellant was before the supreme court today on appeal from the order of judge appointing thomas D dee receiver orthe ogden waterworks during the of the suit to determine the legality of the so called lease or gift of the water rights and waterworks system owned by ogden city to john R bothwell and afterwards assigned by him to the E M allison jr city attorney of ogden judge acy and attorney U C richards appeared for the city and david evans and audgo howatt and E G vaughn of kansas city represented the defendants the case it will be remembered was before the supreme court a few weeks ago on an application of tw defendants for a writ ot certiorari but the writ was refused the court holding the remedy was by appeal the appellants claim that judge erred in the appointment of a receiver 1 the action is legal in the nature of an ejectment and trial of title to the properly and therefore the equitable reme dy ot a receiver cannot be er anted 2 the defendants having previously given notice of their intention to move for a change of venue the court had no power to proceed further with the case to grant the order changing the place of trial 3 that having made such order in excess ol 01 the jurisdiction 0 the coart lt watt a julety 4 that the order appointing app binting a receiver ie a final judgement jud gement from which an appeal lies to the court the plaintiffs contention 1 1 that the action ie not a legal one but ia purely equitable calling for an accounting by the defendants of the rents issues and profeta received by the defendants defend anta froin the water rate and waterworks for the past beven years the return of the property by the water company which it ie claimed holds the property aa trustee for the city and tor damages for the withholding 0 the bame and the destruction st ol 01 the old system 2 that the lower court had power and that it was its duty to place the property in the hands of a receiver to collect and preserve the rentals arising during the of the suit as the present water company is insolvent even before a motion for a change of venue was disposed of 3 that the order appointing a receiver was within the power of the lower court to make 4 that the order appointing a receiver is interlocutory purely and in no sense a final judgment and therefore not Ju dement ordered entered the mandate of the united states supreme court in the case of the utah national bank of vs willia H beardsley affirming the of the supreme court of the late territory ot utah was read and filed in the state supreme court yesterday and judgment in accordance therewith ordered entered proceedings in this case commenced by motion of the widow of the late john brown of ogden to revive a judgment in her favor under the provisions of section of the compiled laws of utah of 1883 the property was purchased by john brown under an execution issued by the second district court at the trial the court rendered judgment in favor of mrs brown for and further ordered that the former judgment of the court rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against beardsley be revived from this judgment defendant appealed to the territorial supreme court where both the district and supreme cuart were upheld at the time the property was par phased at the execution saleby john brown one J 0 armstrong held a mortgage against it ae security for an noted executed by Bear deloy the officer who conducted the sale never paid armstrong the debt Atter warda and while the property was in the possession of brown brought bait to foreclose the mortgage and brown waa im pleaded with beardelee Bear deley in the foreclosure proceedings tle lien of the mortgage was held to be valid and on appeal the judgment was affirmed both by the the territorial supreme court and the supreme court of the united states brown having lost of the property then commenced proceeding to review the judgment in the orisio al suit he died before the case came to trial and his wife wag substituted as petitioner counsel for appellant contended ba the the law to applied only to eales of real estate and was not applicable to sales ol 01 personal property because the revival wag provided for only when the purchaser failed to obtain possession and that no purchaser at an execution sale of personal property can fail to obtain possession because under sections and of the civil code when such property is capable cf manual delivery it must ba present at the sa leand the officer making must deliver the property sold the purchaser the territorial supreme court did not adopt this view of the law and held 51 was applicable to sales ol 01 personal property and that there having been no payment or order of payment of the mortgage which wag a valid lien before the sale the propel ty was not td execution in this the court was upheld by abo united states supreme court |