4 Utah 456 | Utah | 1886
Lead Opinion
This case has already been before this court: Venard v. Old Hickory Min. Co., ante p. 67. At the June term, 1885, a petition for rehearing was filed and denied. Upon the case being remanded, the court below entered up judgment, and the sole question on this hearing is whether judgment was entered in accordance with the opinion of
Let us therefore determine whether tbe judgment of tbe lower court is in accordance with tbe decision of this court. Emerson, J., in delivering tbe opinion, uses this language: “Tbe appellant was entitled to a judgment against tbe respondents for tbe amount of bis wages which tbe court finds due and unpaid, and I can perceive no reason why be was not entitled to a decree foreclosing bis lien, and for an order of sale as against tbe intervenors. His lien antedated that of tbe judgment upon which their rights were founded, and be has done nothing to forfeit it, waive or postpone it. It can make no difference with bis rights, as against tbe respondents or inteivenors, that bis co-plaintiff bad obtained a judgment for bis claim, and a foreclosure of bis lien. Tbe record shows that tbe property will more than satisfy both liens, so that there will be no question about apportioning tbe proceeds of tbe sale. Tbe purchasers at tbe execution sale, who are tbe inter-venors here, must be held to have purchased the property subject to tbe prior lien of tbe appellant.
While we are not exactly satisfied with tbe reasoning of tbe learned judge, still, right or wrong, his conclusions are tbe law of this case, aixd as tbe judge of tbe court
Rehearing
Appellants filed a petition for rehearing.
This petition was denied, the decision thereon being as follows:
This case has been before this court in various phases several times: Venard v. Old Hickory Min. Co., ante p. 67. It is now before us upon a petition for a rehearing. The petition is a carefully prepared criticism of the previous decisions of the court. In the course of the petition counsel for the petitioners quaintly suggests that if this court “will carefully consider these two points” — referring to his petition — “and put in writing the conclusions thereon, we will cheerfully acquiesce in the result, whatever it may be; but, in view of the expression of dissatisfaction with the reasoning of Judge Emerson, contained in the last opinion, we are emboldened to say, with all due respect, that, in the pressure of business, the court has heretofore failed to give the attention to the questions involved which their importance seems to require.” We cannot devote our time to answering. ingenious criticisms of our opinions, merely that counsel may cheerfully acquiesce in the result, and it is sufficient for us to say that counsel has stated no ground for a rehearing. We have given this case very careful consideration, and we are satisfied with the result. We must call the attention of counsel to the previous decisions of this court with reference to rehearings. The petition is denied.
