Abe W. Turner

This case involved a wrongful death claim by a father against a driver whose car struck and killed his young son in an Ogden intersection in 1942. A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and $345 in special damages, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have directed a verdict for lack of negligence evidence, that the jury was misinstructed, and that the damages were excessive. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that conflicting witness accounts created a jury question on negligence and avoidability, that the instructions adequately covered the parties' theories, and that the award was not excessive when adjusted for the dollar's reduced purchasing power since earlier precedents. The court rejected claims that the child necessarily ran into the side of the car or that the instructions failed to address damages factors such as age and earning capacity.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who sued defendant mining company for breach of a 1938 royalty lease agreement to develop tunnel No. 8 on defendant's property, seeking $10 per foot of development work after an injunction in federal condemnation proceedings halted operations and no commercial ore or sale occurred during the lease term. The trial court dismissed the claim but awarded only nominal damages of 10 cents, ruling that the federal injunction prevented performance and that defendant had not breached the lease. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that termination of the lease resulted from the condemnation action rather than any fault or breach by defendant, so plaintiffs were not entitled to the requested damages under the lease terms. The court distinguished the lease from a separate employment agreement on another tunnel for which plaintiffs had already recovered wages.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a railroad worker, Harry O. Pauly, who was injured while working on or near passing tracks and a bridge at Chacra, Colorado, leading to a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work. The majority opinion concluded there was insufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of whether the location qualified as a place to work under the Act. In dissent, Justice Turner argued that the facts presented a jury question, as the passing tracks were used for operational purposes like allowing trains to pass and repairing equipment, and that precedents such as Bly v. Southern R. Co. and Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway supported submitting the issue of negligence to the jury rather than directing a verdict. The dissent emphasized that conflicts in evidence and reasonable inferences should be resolved by the factfinder, not the court on appeal.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerned the estate of Martha Ann Benner, who died intestate, and whether her grandchild whom she had adopted could inherit both directly as her adopted child and additionally through succession from his deceased natural mother. The prevailing opinion held that dual inheritance was permitted in these circumstances. The core reasoning was that adoption does not sever the right to inherit from natural relatives absent a contrary statute, and no such limitation applied here to bar the child from claiming in both capacities.

family lawproperty

Plaintiffs sued Holland Furnace Co. over a contract for purchasing and installing a heating system in their home, asserting three claims: that the financing terms were usurious under Utah statute, that the installed furnace was not the model specified in the contract, and that the installation constituted a trespass. After a jury trial on two claims and a bench trial on the usury claim, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant on all counts. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the charges did not exceed the statutory interest limits, that the furnace was substantially equivalent to the contracted model in capacity and value so there was no breach, and that no trespass therefore occurred.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of an administrator for the joint estates of Mary Ann Martin, who died intestate in 1917, and her husband Samuel Henry Martin, who died intestate in 1944, with competing petitions from a surviving daughter and grandchildren of deceased children. The district court appointed an administrator to handle both estates together after earlier nominees were rejected. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the order, holding that joint administration was improper under the statute because Samuel's estate did not consist of property descending from Mary Ann. The court also noted that the probate court lacked authority to adjudicate title disputes over property claimed by third parties like Ruby A. Martin and that certain surviving spouses of deceased children were not heirs of Mary Ann requiring notice.

family lawprocedureproperty

The case involved plaintiffs seeking to enjoin North Ogden City from opening streets shown on an 1870 townsite plat, claiming title to those areas through long-term adverse use after the 1872 federal patent conveyed the land in trust under the Federal Townsite Act and related territorial laws. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment against the plaintiffs, holding that they could not prevent the city from opening the streets. The reasoning centered on the townsite statutes, which required dedication of streets for public use with title vesting in the municipality, barred claims not asserted during the original adjudication process over 70 years earlier, and treated any subsequent use of street areas as merely permissive rather than conveying ownership.

property

In Allen v. Allen, the plaintiff wife sought a divorce from her husband, a physician, along with alimony, an equitable share of his property, attorney fees, and related relief after years of intermittent separation and prior maintenance orders. The trial court granted the divorce and awarded her $275 monthly alimony, payment of a dental bill, attorney fees, and beneficiary status on a $10,000 life insurance policy with restrictions, while denying further property division. Both parties appealed, with the wife arguing the awards were insufficient and the husband contending they were excessive. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the decree in full, reasoning that the trial court had properly exercised discretion by considering the length of the marriage, the wife's homemaking contributions, the husband's professional earning capacity and established practice, prior support awards, the adult status of the children, and the security provided by the insurance policy as comparable to other forms of property division.

family lawproperty

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for assault with intent to commit rape under Utah Code 1943, 103-7-7, arising from an incident during a taxicab ride where the defendant allegedly pulled off the road, made advances, and touched the prosecutrix before stopping upon her resistance. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent to rape and errors in the trial court's handling of motions for dismissal and a new trial. The court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the evidence at most supported an assault with intent to have intercourse that was abandoned, falling short of proving the specific intent required for the charged offense. The court further reasoned that the trial judge's extensive leading questions, which elicited new testimony about the defendant's actions and demonstrated bias toward the prosecution, prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial, as evidenced by the jury's rapid verdict without deliberation.

criminal law

This case involved the widow and children of a Utah fireman killed on duty in 1943, who had settled a negligence lawsuit against a third-party ladder manufacturer for $15,500 and sought immediate payments from the state Fireman’s Pension Fund. The Commission of Finance awarded the pension benefits but deferred their start date until 1949, construing the plaintiffs’ settlement contract with the city as equivalent to an Industrial Commission award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Utah Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the contract represented an election to pursue damages against the third party rather than a workers’ compensation award, so the statutory deferral provision did not apply and payments should begin immediately.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved an interpleader action by Milford State Bank over escrow documents from a land sale between Saraessa Harris Baker and William T. Blackner, including a disputed water stock certificate No. 65 for 49 shares issued by the West Field Canal & Irrigation Company. Blackner sought delivery of the shares and water rights, while the Irrigation Company claimed the certificate was spurious, invalid, and issued without consideration, asserting that Baker had only sold appurtenant water rights tied to the land (28 shares, one per acre). The trial court found for the Irrigation Company after evidence showed the sale covered land with its existing appurtenant water rights rather than a fixed number of shares, that certificate 65 had never been used or assessed, and that Blackner was aware of these facts and stood in no better position than Baker. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the findings and that shares in the irrigation company were appurtenant to the land unless transferred for beneficial use elsewhere.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation seeking to foreclose on a mortgage and note executed by Mary Washington on her Salt Lake City home after she fell behind on installment payments. The trial court granted foreclosure in a second action, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the first foreclosure suit had been prematurely filed because only a small amount was overdue and not delinquent for the required ninety days, and that Washington’s tenders of the amounts due (including in open court) were valid and should have been accepted to reinstate the contract without acceleration of the full debt, costs, or attorney’s fees. The court reasoned that under the note and mortgage terms, as well as general principles of tender, a proper offer of the overdue installments before the lender exercises its option to declare the entire balance due cuts off the right to accelerate, and the lender had also failed to follow required procedures regarding taxes and assessments before declaring default.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute between a real estate broker and a property owner over whether the broker is entitled to a sales commission under a listing agreement or damages for breach of contract. The court addressed the conditions under which a broker can recover a commission, such as by producing a ready, willing, and able buyer or if the owner sells the property during the contract term, and when damages are available if the owner prevents performance. The concurring opinion emphasizes that recovery for breach requires proof just as strong as for actual performance, including evidence of an enforceable contract or the owner's refusal to convey. The court concluded that the record lacked sufficient competent and credible evidence to support the lower court's judgment, indicating the action was brought prematurely.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a contract dispute in which plaintiff Ray S. Tanner ordered 9,000 turkey poults from defendant Childers Hatchery, with the order accepted subject to hazards beyond the hatchery's control. Due to production delays, only partial shipments were made; the plaintiff directed the hatchery to prioritize other customers and later sent a letter seeking confirmation of further deliveries or threatening to buy elsewhere and claim damages. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover for the undelivered poults because any new agreement failed to satisfy the statute of frauds, the letter terminated ongoing obligations, and the plaintiff had waived pro rata delivery of the available birds. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiff's own actions and communications relieving the defendant of further performance under the original contract terms.

business & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint in which an unlicensed plaintiff alleged an oral agreement with a licensed real estate broker to receive one-third of the broker's commission for assisting in obtaining property listings; after the plaintiff helped secure a listing that led to a sale, the broker refused to pay the $500 share. The district court sustained the defendant's demurrer on grounds that the plaintiff was acting as an unlicensed real estate salesman under Utah statutes and that the oral agreement violated the statute of frauds. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's limited role in assisting with listings did not fall within the statutory definitions of broker or salesman requiring a license, as the law targets those negotiating or closing transactions rather than mere helpers, and that the employment contract did not involve an interest in land so the statute of frauds did not apply. The court concluded the complaint stated a valid cause of action and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a portion of a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Beneficial Life Insurance Company against the Mason defendants. The trial court found the material allegations of the complaint true, entered a decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff's assignee, and awarded only $50 in attorney fees despite uncontradicted testimony that ten percent of the amount due, or $500, was reasonable. The trial court justified the lower fee by finding that the matter could have settled for $50 but for the vindictiveness of one defendant. The Utah Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to make a proper finding on a reasonable attorney fee, potentially after taking additional evidence if needed, and to enter judgment accordingly.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure action brought by plaintiff Pearl M. Mason after she was assigned a promissory note and mortgage originally held by the Federal Land Bank; the note and mortgage provided for a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court in the event of foreclosure. The trial court granted foreclosure in plaintiff’s favor but awarded only a nominal $1 attorney’s fee, despite uncontradicted expert testimony that ten percent of the recovery amount (roughly $385–$390) would be reasonable, on the ground that the suit was vindictive and considering other equities between the parties. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held that where a note or mortgage expressly provides for reasonable attorney’s fees, the prevailing plaintiff is entitled to such a fee as a matter of contract, and the trial court must make a finding supported by evidence rather than arbitrarily reducing the fee based on perceived motives or equities. The court therefore remanded with instructions to determine and award a reasonable attorney’s fee, authorizing the taking of additional evidence if needed. The topics addressed are property and procedure.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between adjoining landowners over a narrow strip of property in Salt Lake City where the defendant's brick building encroached on the plaintiff's lot. The plaintiff sought to quiet title to his land according to the recorded deed descriptions, while the defendant counterclaimed to quiet title to the encroached strip plus an extension northward, asserting that the east wall of the building had become the established boundary through long use and acquiescence. The trial court ruled for the defendant, finding the boundary line fixed by the building wall and recognized by the parties. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the evidence showed no agreement, acquiescence, or estoppel establishing the wall as the boundary line beyond the building's actual length, and that the recorded descriptions controlled the parties' titles.

property

The case concerned a challenge to deeds or conveyances executed by an 82-year-old woman, Mrs. Thomas, shortly before her death, under which her son Richard received substantially all of her property and other children were effectively disinherited; the plaintiffs alleged undue influence. The court sustained the trial court's judgment upholding the conveyances. The concurring justice agreed there was no reversible error in the trial proceedings, which were conducted fairly, and emphasized deference to the trial court's superior position in assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence over the appellate court's review of the transcript alone. Although the justice expressed personal doubts about the strength of the evidence supporting the defendant's position and urged caution with instruments executed by the elderly or ill, the outcome was affirmed based on the absence of legal error and the trial court's findings.

family lawproperty

The case was a negligence action brought by Ogden Livestock Shows, Inc. against defendant Wade after his heavily loaded truck crossed and broke a bridge owned or maintained by the plaintiff. The court held that Wade was not liable, as the plaintiff failed to prove he knew or should have known through reasonable care that the bridge could not support the load. The core reasoning was that Wade inspected the bridge from underneath, it showed no apparent defects and appeared to be of heavy construction, others present believed it could handle the weight, and the collapse resulted from hidden defects that could not have been discovered.

torts & liability