Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, Volume 14
Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, John Walcott Thompson, George L. Nye, Harmel L. Pratt, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, H. Arnold Rich, William S. Dalton
A. L. Bancroft, 1897 - Law reports, digests, etc
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
9 Utah action affirmed alleged amount answer appeal applied assignment authority Bank Brown cause charge chief City claim complaint concur consideration considered constitution construction contract corporation damages Decided decree defendant denied determine district court duty effect election Emerson entered equity error evidence execution existence express facts filed final findings follows further given granted held hold injury intent interest issue Judge judgment jury justice land legislature lien limited material matter means ment mining mortgage motion named necessary objection offered officers opinion paid parties passed payment person plaintiff pleadings possession principal proper purchase question Railway reasonable received record reference refused relation respect respondent reversed rule secure signed statement statute sufficient suit supreme court taken testimony thereon tion trial unless witness
Page 435 - The causes of action so united must all belong to one only of these classes, and must affect all the parties to the action, and not require different places of trial, and must be separately stated...
Page 160 - Each of the Justices shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the State, upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before himself, or the Supreme Court, or before any Superior Court in the State, or before any Judge thereof.
Page 9 - Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator upon a claim, or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.
Page 382 - All laws now in force in the territory of Wisconsin, which are not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or be altered or repealed by the legislature.
Page 188 - The writ of mandamus may be denominated the writ of mandate.— 1873-345. 1085. It may be issued by any court, except a justice's or police court, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station...
Page 6 - When any testator omits to provide in his will for any of his children, or for the issue of any deceased child, unless it appears that such omission was intentional, such child, or the issue of such child, must have the same share in the estate of the testator as if he had died intestate, and succeeds thereto as provided in the preceding section.
Page 81 - Any person, body corporate, agent, manager or employer who shall violate any of the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Page 359 - The governor shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, (a majority of all the senators elected concurring, by yeas and nays), appoint all officers whose offices are established by this constitution, or which may be created by law, and whose appointment or election is not otherwise provided for; and no such officer shall be appointed or elected by the general assembly.
Page 87 - Its sole purpose was to declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or Impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other States within your jurisdiction.
Page 249 - A previous ruling of the appellate court upon a point distinctly made may be only authority in other cases, to be followed and affirmed, or to be modified and overruled, according to its intrinsic merits. But. in the case in which it is made, it is more than authority. It is a final adjudication, from the consequences of which the court cannot depart, nor the parties relieve themselves.