James H. Wolfe

This case involved an attorney suing a mining corporation for $10,000 in compensation for legal and related services rendered continuously from 1921 to 1951, with the defendant countering that nearly all services had been paid for and that the four-year statute of limitations barred most of the claim. A jury returned a special verdict awarding $1,500 after valuing services in three separate periods and finding that an acknowledgment of the debt by the defendant's president tolled the limitations period for some earlier work. Both parties appealed, with the plaintiff challenging the adequacy of the award and certain jury instructions, and the defendant arguing that only $100 should have been recoverable. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against Ringsby Truck Lines and its driver after her husband and son were killed when their jeep struck a bridge on U.S. Highway 40, went out of control, and collided with the defendants' tractor-trailer. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, finding insufficient proof that the truck driver was negligent in failing to avoid the collision or that any such negligence proximately caused the deaths. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, showed the driver observed the jeep hit the bridge but lost sight of it thereafter, with no brake marks or other indications he could have stopped or maneuvered in time to prevent the impact on his side of the road. The court concluded there was no basis for a jury to find the defendants liable under any theory.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a shareholder who had possessed endorsed stock certificates since 1931 but was not listed as the record owner; she sued the corporation to recover dividends declared and paid between 1948 and 1950 to individuals appearing on the company's books as owners, including one who obtained reissued certificates by claiming the originals were lost and presenting an assignment from the widow of the deceased record holder. The trial court awarded her the dividends on 800 shares, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that although statutes permit a corporation without notice to treat the record owner as entitled to dividends and to reissue certificates upon a lost-certificate claim backed by indemnity, those protections do not apply when the underlying assignment conveys no actual interest and the true owner never transferred her rights, rendering the payment a mistake that does not defeat her claim.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned a dispute over title to 112 shares of stock in the Mendon Central Irrigation Company, which the respondent claimed had passed as an appurtenance to farmland she acquired in 1949, while the appellant, as heir to the original owner Andrew Andersen, argued the water rights had been severed when Andersen conveyed them to the irrigation company in 1918. The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the trial court's judgment quieting title to the stock in the respondent. Under statutes then in effect, a water right appurtenant to land passes with a conveyance of the land unless expressly reserved, and water rights represented by corporate stock are transferred by endorsement and delivery of the certificate. The court found that evidence of continuous irrigation use since 1890, the land's limited value without water, language in the probate decree and deeds referring to appurtenant water rights, and the appraisal of the land as including the water right sufficiently rebutted the statutory presumption that the rights did not pass with the land.

property

This case involved two brothers who inherited equal shares in remainder of their late father's house and lot in Utah, subject to a life estate held by their stepmother; after her death, one brother petitioned for partition by sale of the property and an accounting of rents allegedly taken by the other, while the second brother counterclaimed for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to purchase his brother's interest for $900. The trial court denied the petition and granted specific performance, ordering conveyance of the interest upon payment of the $500 balance plus interest. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the outcome, holding that evidence established an oral contract for sale of land and that the buyer's payment of part of the price, taking possession, and making improvements constituted sufficient part performance to satisfy the statute of frauds under Utah law, thereby permitting enforcement despite the lack of a writing. The court remanded for entry of proper findings supporting the decree of specific performance.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Emerald Oil Co., a Utah corporation, seeking a refund of corporate franchise taxes paid for 1949 and 1950 on royalty income from oil leases on its Colorado land, arguing it was not doing business in Utah and that the income should not be allocated to the state. The State Tax Commission denied the refund, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the royalties were properly allocated to Utah under the franchise tax statutes because the corporation's primary business activities, including management of the leases, occurred in Utah; the income was not derived from business done outside the state; and unallocated income of a domestic corporation is presumed taxable in Utah. The opinion noted that the company's articles of incorporation and operations centered in Vernal, Utah, while its activities in Colorado were limited to passive lessor rights.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Salt Lake City sued the McFarlands to recover $184.31 for culinary water supplied through its mains to their property outside city limits. The McFarlands, owners of one share in the Green Ditch Water Company, claimed they were entitled under a 1920 exchange agreement to a greater amount of free water measured by their 2.88 acres of land rather than by their single share. The court held that the agreement entitled them to free water only on the basis of one share (treated as an acre-share at the time of the deal), not current acreage, and that they must pay city rates for any excess usage. The reasoning centered on Utah law allowing water rights to be conveyed separately from land, so the reservation in the agreement was not permanently tied to specific acreage, and the McFarlands had accepted the city's terms by requesting the connection and using the water. The judgment for the city was affirmed.

property

The case involved an action by the State Engineer to collect assessments from water users on the North and South Forks of the Sanpitch River for the salary and expenses of a water commissioner appointed to distribute water from the river system in 1950 and 1951. The trial court ruled the assessments void as to the respondents, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that holding while reversing the award of costs against the State Engineer. The court reasoned that the governing statute required the costs to be borne pro rata by all users of the river system or water source, but the State Engineer had assessed only users on two tributaries without any reasonable basis for excluding users on other tributaries, violating the statutory requirement of proportional sharing.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case was a class action by workers against contractor Ralph E. Childs seeking recovery of prevailing wages and overtime pay allegedly owed under Utah's Minimum Wage on Public Works statutes for work on a public high school construction project. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not allege compliance with all statutory conditions or detail the specific wages paid versus the prevailing rates. The Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the complaint's allegations of willful violation of the prevailing wage and overtime requirements were sufficient to provide notice under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim rather than technical recitals of statutory language, as the statutes here imposed no special pleading prerequisites unlike other laws.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a boundary dispute between adjoining landowners along U.S. Highway 91 in Provo, Utah, where a fence built in 1928 encroached 6-11 feet onto the respondents' lot according to the deed descriptions. The trial court quieted title to the disputed strip in the respondents, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the deeds validly conveyed property to the center of the adjacent street under Utah statute and common law, rejecting claims that the grantors could not have intended to convey land they did not own. It further ruled that no express parol boundary agreement existed, as the fence was erected only to exclude livestock, and the elements for boundary by acquiescence were not met due to lack of mutual recognition of the fence as the true dividing line over time.

property

In Smith v. Bennett, plaintiff Henrietta Smith, a pedestrian, sued defendant automobile driver for damages from personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had left a marked pedestrian crosswalk and walked in the middle of the street without yielding the right of way to the defendant's approaching vehicle, failing to maintain a proper lookout as required by Utah law, which made her negligence a proximate cause of the accident.

torts & liability

The case Bowman v. Hayward involved a former prisoner suing a deputy sheriff, the sheriff, and their bonding companies for damages from an assault and battery after the plaintiff, working as a jail trusty, refused to wash the deputy's private car. A jury awarded the plaintiff $150 against the deputy in his personal capacity only. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the deputy had acted in his official capacity because he invoked his authority to enforce compliance with orders related to jail operations and used force derived from his position as a representative of the sheriff. As a result, the court held the sheriff and sureties jointly and severally liable with the deputy and awarded the plaintiff attorney fees under statutes governing actions against officers for official misconduct.

torts & liability

This case began as an action to quiet title to approximately 560 acres of Utah land but was converted by stipulation into a dispute over the parties' interests in escrow proceeds from the land's sale. Plaintiffs Mathis had purchased the property jointly under a 1942 contract with Kingston as trustee for the Davis County Cooperative Society, later sub-sold their interest to defendants Ferrell, and relied on a 1947 instrument (Exhibit D) to claim assignment of the cooperative's one-fifth interest. The trial court found the evidence supported plaintiffs' entitlement to judgment regarding the division of escrow funds. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that Exhibit D transferred the relevant rights, while overruling an unnecessary finding on possession.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether partners distributing Rusco windows were required to pay contributions to the state Unemployment Compensation Fund based on payments to franchise dealers who solicited sales and contract installers who performed installations. The Board of Review and Appeals Referee had ruled the dealers and installers were in employment under the Employment Security Act, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied the statutory ABC test for employment, finding that the dealers and installers performed services for wages, the plaintiffs exercised direction and control, and the workers were not customarily engaged in independently established businesses of the same nature. Agreements, training, leads, fixed pricing, termination rights, and quotas supported the existence of an employment relationship rather than vendor-vendee or independent contractor status. A concurrence noted potential issues with the statute's differentiation among workers but agreed with the result under the existing law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a suit on a supersedeas bond to recover damages for the defendants' retention of possession of 160 acres of land during an unsuccessful appeal from a judgment quieting title in the plaintiffs. The trial court awarded plaintiffs $24 in damages based on the rental value of the land for grazing purposes. The court affirmed this award, reasoning that damages for the contemplated agricultural use were too speculative and uncertain because the land was undeveloped sagebrush used only for grazing, with uncertain water supply and other risks involved in farming it.

propertyprocedure

In Hooper v. General Motors Corp., the plaintiff sued the defendant automobile assembler for negligence after she was injured in a 1951 rollover accident allegedly caused by the separation of a defective left rear wheel on her new Chevrolet pickup truck, which she claimed resulted from inadequate manufacturing, assembly, or inspection. The trial court entered a judgment of no cause of action based on a jury instruction stating that the post-accident wheel separation provided no evidence of a defect at the time of sale or of causation, and it also admitted certain expert testimony. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held the instruction erroneous and prejudicial because the fact of separation could support inferences of a discoverable defect existing at assembly and of causation, satisfying key elements of the plaintiff's negligence claim under precedents like McPherson v. Buick Motor Co. The court further addressed the admissibility of expert opinions on ultimate facts, noting evolving rules permitting such testimony when based on specialized knowledge. The judgment was therefore reversed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over an alleged agreement for the sale of two tracts of real estate in Salt Lake City owned by defendants Harry Price, Jr., his wife, and his sister as tenants in common. Plaintiff Angelo Ravarino sought specific performance after the defendants' wives signed an earnest money receipt and agreement for $19,000, Price orally indicated approval during negotiations, and Ravarino purchased an adjacent strip of land in reliance on that assurance. The trial court found the facts supported the complaint and ordered conveyance of the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute of frauds barred enforcement because Price had not signed the writing and the partial performance doctrine did not apply to remove the oral contract from the statute's requirements.

property

The case involved a dispute between landowners and a drainage district over the scope of an easement allowing drainage water to flow across the plaintiffs' property through a specific outlet. After the district modified its operations by diverting most water to another outlet and permitting new drains on the dominant estate, the plaintiffs sought to hold the district in contempt for allegedly violating an amended court decree that limited the easement to the 1947 manner of operation. The court affirmed the lower court's interpretation that the district could make improvements and construct new drains so long as they did not materially increase the flow of water or burden on the servient estate. The core reasoning rested on the decree's language distinguishing maintenance from improvements and on the principle that changes benefiting the dominant estate are permissible if the burden on the servient land is not increased.

property

This case involved an appeal from a lower court's order to expunge certain portions of a 1951 Utah County grand jury report that criticized public officials, including state welfare and road commissioners and Provo City, for alleged maladministration and misconduct without returning indictments against them. The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the expungement order. The court reasoned that while grand juries may investigate and report on general conditions needing remedy, they should not file reports imputing misconduct or wrongdoing on public officers unless followed by an indictment, as such reports can damage reputations without providing an opportunity for defense, and the statutory language limits inquiries to willful and corrupt misconduct.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved lenders seeking to foreclose on security for a $1600 promissory note given by borrowers in connection with a home purchase, where the note covered a $1500 loan obtained by the lenders plus a $100 fee and 6% interest over 90 days. The borrowers defended by asserting the note was usurious under Utah law limiting interest to 10% per annum, leading the trial court to declare the note and security null and void. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the extra charge constituted usury, requiring proof of intent to violate the statute, and reviewed the facts showing the lenders added the fee for arranging the funds and relinquishing their own purchase rights. The court affirmed cancellation of the note and security based on the effective interest exceeding the statutory cap.

business & regulatoryproperty