Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, Volume 9
Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, John Walcott Thompson, George L. Nye, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich
A. L. Bancroft, 1894
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action agreed agreement alleged amount answer appeal assignment authority bank cars cause charge circumstances claim complaint contract corporation costs counsel crossing damages decree deed defendant delivered district court duty easements effect entered entitled error evidence exception execution existence facts filed follows fraud furnish further give given granted ground held injury instruction interest issued judge judgment jury justice Lake land liable lien material matter ment Messrs MINER mortgage motion necessary negligence notice objection offered officers opinion owner paid party payment performance person plaintiff possession present proceeding purchase question Railroad Railway reasonable received record recover refused respondent rule SMITH statement statute street sufficient suit taken Territory testimony thereof third tion track train trial United Utah verdict witness
Page 67 - The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate ; but in civil actions three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.
Page 4 - ... 2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition." See. 171. The counterclaim mentioned in the last section must be one existing in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff, between whom a several judgment might be had in the action, and arising out of one of the following causes of action: "1.
Page 233 - Although the defendant's negligence may have been the primary cause of the injury complained of, yet an action for such injury cannot be maintained if the proximate and immediate cause of the injury can be traced to the want of ordinary care and caution in the person injured, subject to this qualification, which has grown up in recent years (having been first enunciated in Davies v.
Page 86 - In case of any other transfer of interest, the action may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.
Page 205 - No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of the judges, or any of them, is such malconduct as avoids an election, unless the irregularity or improper conduct is such as to procure the person whose right to the office is contested to be declared elected when he had not received the highest number of legal votes.
Page 349 - I believe quite correctly, that "the rule of law is laid down with perfect correctness in the case of Butterfield v. Forrester, that, although there may have been negligence on the part of the plaintiff, yet unless he might, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence, he is entitled to recover; if by ordinary care he might have avoided them, he is the author of his own wrong.
Page 361 - That whenever by priority of possession rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same, and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed...
Page 232 - ordinary care," 'reasonable prudence,' and such like terms, as applied to the conduct and affairs of men, have a relative significance, and cannot be arbitrarily defined. What may be deemed ordinary care in one case may, under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence. The policy of the law has relegated the determination of such questions to the jury, under proper instructions from the court. It is their province to note the...
Page 251 - When a given state of facts is such that reasonable men may fairly differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the matter is for the jury.