OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, August 27, 1958 THE DAILY RECORD A SPECIAL FEATURE SERVICE FOR DAILY RECORD READERS tfotahle fcectiicnA Oh CatoA ctf &ccal JfntereM Supreme Court o the State o Utah IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH the opinion the following will suffice. The cornerstone of the claimed partnership as contended for by plaintiff is that the Hand purchased by defendant at Moab on which the trailer court was built was partnership property in which he owned a onehalf interest. In paragraph 2 of his complaint lie alleged: On or about April, 1954, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a partnership agreement to purchase certain property located in the city of Moab, Utah, from a person named Frank Peterson. Said property consisting of fifteen (15) acres of ground at the price of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00) per acre. To the following interrogatories the plaintiff made the following answers: 16. Under the terms of the alleged partnership agreement what interest do ypu state was to be received toy you in the real estate from the Defendant? of 4 Vlnal Millett, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gloria Langston, Defendant and Appellant. No. 8750 - WORTHEN, Justice: Appeal Croon the trial courts finding that plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership agreement Cor the construction and running of a trailer court, from a judgment for plaintiff Cor the sum of seven hundred eighty-on- e dollars and thirfyrix cents of the ($781.36), being one-hal- f profits on the operation of the trailer court, and from the judgment of the court for distribution of (the purported partnership assets. In Crockett v. Nash (1), this court said: Since this is a suit in equity, it is our duty under Art. VIH, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, to review the facts. In examining the transcript to determine what our conclusions from the evidence will be we are to make an independent analysis of It. If at the end of the investigation we are in doubt or even if there be a slight preponderance in our minds against the trial courts conclusions we will affirm. Plaintiffs various and irreconcilable positions evidenced in his pleadings, his deposition, this affidavit in support of his miction for the appointment of a receiver, his answers to interrogatories and his testimony while on the witness stand are so fantastic, land so vacillating as to compel the conclusion that the same is unworthy of credence. To fully demonstrate the extent of his contradictions and inconsistencies would require setting out in full all of these portions of the record, but we are . Ans. (). Onehalf. to make the payments on such property and who was to be respon- 17. Who was sible far seeing that such payments were made, both before and after you terminated your connection with the Riversands Trailer Court in about July, 1955? Ans. Gloria Langston 57. What interest in real estate do you claim you are entitled to receive under the alleged partnership agreement? And in what properties? f Ans. the River Sands Trailer Court He testified that he and defendant purchased five acres of land at Moab, bolt that defendant took the property in her own name; that when the purchase was made he requested that it be One-Hal- (), LEGAL NOTICES THE DAILY RECORD, Whats What, and The Western Mineral Survey have been approved by the Judges af the Third Judicial District of the State of Utah as a newspaper qualified to publish notices, advertisement, etc., as provided by the statutes of the State of Utah.. and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah now In file with the Clerk thereof will be heard on the 10th day of October, 1958 at 10:30 o'clock A.M. of said day or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in the courtroom of the Honorable Merrill C. Faux, one of the Judges of the above entitled Court in the City and County Building at Salt Lake City, Utah. WITNEB8 the hand of the Clerk and official seal of said Clerk this 18th day of August, 1958. ALVIN K EDDINGTON, Clerk (SEAL) Probate and Guardianship Notices SENIOR By JACOB WEILER, Se Deputy 20, 1958. Consult clerk of district oourl er the respective signers for NOTICE . IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. STATE OF UTAH OF MURDOCK INVESTSe THOMPSON MENT COMPANY, a Utah corporation. NOTICE OF HEARING UPON APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION Notice ie hereby given that thempplica-tio-IN- n of THOMPSON dc MURDOCK VESTMENT COMPANY, a utah corporaof its cortion, for voluntary dissolution District porate entity as presented to the Court of the Third Judicial District in . - f partner with her in the ownership of the cabins and improvements on the property alone. Nevertheless the trial court found that the parties entered into a partnership agreement for the construction and running of a trailer court; and after finding plaintiff entitled to $781.36 as his share of the profits, ordered the partnership dissolved and the seal estate and the improvements separately appraised, and allowed defendant f 30 days to purchase plaintiffs interest in the partnership assets (consisting of the buildings and improvements on the land) and in the event defendant failed to pay plaintiff, then plaintiff was given the right to pay defendant plus onehalf of the value of the the appraised value af the land buildings and improvements. If plaintiff failed to purchase from defendant, the same was ordered to be sold and the proceed divided onehalf of the appraised value of buildings and improvements to plaintiff and the balance to deone-hal- fendant. It is unnecessary to point out that the attempted dissolution was improper, and not in accordance with the statute as to occupying claimants. Plaintiff testified that he was to go down to Moab and put it over that he was to go down there and stay and run that part of it The record discloses plaintiffs background to be as follows: Plaintiff had never run a trailer court or motor court or any business of that nature. Before plaintiff went to Moab in May, 1954, he had been out of work six weeks and was drawing unemployment compensation; he had no money, no savings; he had never held a job longer than 10 months at a time. He was a carpenter by trade and had previously failed in three business ventures (that he had undertaken. But he was the favorite brother of defendants (Continued on page 4) Don't Walt Until Friday To Run YOUR LEGALS ANY DAY OF THE WEEK in further Information. IN THE MATTER OF: THE VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION . Court, including the real estate and the cabins and improvements. Never did he claim that he was a When They Can Run SENIOR, Attorneys for Applicant 10 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, Utah Date of first publication August put in the names of plaintiff, (d- Real Estate office and he, his efendant (and plaintiffs (brother, Ira sister, Roxie Boshaxd, and deMillett He further testified that fendant were present the original arrangement was far Mrs. Bro shard called as a witdefendant to put up all the money, ness for the plaintiff testified that for this brother Ira to furnish the she was never in the real estate cabins, and he would go down Office. She further testified that and 'pioneer the project, run the she rode to Moab with plaintiff court, build the buildings and col- and defendant; that from what she lect the money, and each would heard discussed plaintiff was just have a onethird interest. His helping. deposition discloses the following Plaintiff testified at the trial testimony. as follows: Q. And it was your contention Q. Now, is it your contention that at that time you that Gloria Langston was wanted the .property put to put up all the money in all three names? and that you were to take A. Yes. the money out of the proceeds of the operation of Q. Did you pift any money up at that time? the motor court for your A. No. No, I didnt put any expenses, that you did not send her any money, and money up. Ira that She was still to give Q. Did put any money up? A. No, he didnt put any you onehalf interest in the real estate? money. He just put the cabins up. A. Yes because we was workQ. The only person who paid ing to get the trailer camp any money to the real in operation so we could estate people was make some money . . . A. Was her, and that was the Q. And you say she should arrangement. Thats why (have given you one half of we had her. She couldnt the $16,000.00 property do nothing else. She said without your putting anyshe had a little money. thing into it except spend(Emphasis added) fifteen months down ing Yet plaintiff testified that he there? borrowed $100 and made down A. Well, we were putting in payment on the additional eight or time and work. nine acres Of land. But when the And Q. you were living off receipt- was issued for the down income that came of the payment, it was made in favor in? of defendant. Plaintiff failed A. Absolutely. when he had the chance to proQ. And in addition you were vide for this land to be taken in to get one half of the prophis name. erty? Plaintiffs story as to how he A. Yes sir. became entitled to a half interest Were Q. you also to take over instead of a third interest was the obligation after that given while on the witness stand months to pay one fifteen as follows: half of the payments? Q. Well, can you tell me how We A. was making the trailer you two were going to camp make the payments. share in any profits? You were not to put up Q. A. Well, after she let Ira go of your own at money any see, he worked, or after then? time any he shipped Ithe cabins No. (Emphasis added) A. then approximately down, a couple of months she Plaintiff at no time either in came up after some mare his pleadings, desposition, interlumber from him, so see, rogatories or: testimony claimed interhes supposed to be third anything less than one-halTrailer owner then, and so she est in the River Sands came up after lumber, and 'he didnt have that kind of lumber ready, so she took the other, but it made her mad, so she told him he was out of It now, he . didnt have any part of the business, but never offered to settle nor never settled for it at all, no he just out, so she told me, Now,' she says, you and I will go In half on it We will be half,1 and I told Ira, Well, Aall I can do, and then I can fix it up with you later on my part Thats all we can do now. (Emphasis added) Plaintiff admitted that he was not present and that the above statements so far as Ira is concerned were hearsay, and defendant denied that any such conversation occurred. Plaintiffs version of how he became entitled to the onehalf interest is no more fantastic and incredible than the balance of his stories. He acquired the larger interest by defendants being obliged to take over Iras obligations but without her getting Iras interest in the venture. He further testified that the partnership agreement was made in the Allen the Read It In The Daily Record |