OCR Text |
Show Pare 4 TIIE DAILY RECORD Liens 1603 Friday, Aurust Release of Mortgages Quit Claim Deods 1603 1603 Jessie Knight to S L Co Wel- 153 Wm E Birch to 8 E White; 152 Roosevelt Sav Bk of the City fare Dept; none; 1 53 B of N Y to Alfred A Aaron; 18 Hts none; 376 Pratt N Peterson to SiL 281 Christa A Atker to J Mercer $10,100; 32 Rose Pk U County Welfare Dept; none; 154 First Fed Sav & Ln to AnAnderson; $10; 20 3S IE 23 Sub 294 Bartlett to Adm. Leon drew Peterson; $3,500; 11 5 Wicks, 376 Wm B Clements to S L Go 22 19 Jordan Brown; $50; Evergreen Pk Welfare Dept; 8 19 ChesterAdd Place 171 Walker Bk & Tr Co to Harfield A 304 Wm F Roberts to Joseph A old J Holm; $3,900 and $4,000; Kjar; $10; 7 Sac C 34 IS IE PARTIAL RELEASE 338 Morley S Dunford to Annie 182 E B Wicks Co to The UniM D Munson; $1; 11 IS 1W OF MORTGAGES versity Student Fellowship; 339 Morley S Dunford to Morley 6 25 F $3,750; 1603 S Dunford; $1; 11 IS 1W 202 Walker Bk & Tr to 381 State Sav & Ln to Presley A Oonstn Co; DuVall; none; 28 2S 1W 16 Cottonwood Meadows 386 Prud Fed Sav & Ln to MaurC er; Dev Corp; none; 128 Mur205 Fed Nat Mtge Assn to Lloy 1603 ray Dale Sub Add No 3 Morley; $11,000; 36 Amended 390 Am Sav & Ln to Clyde Coon; 288 Nada R Brockbank, Gdn to Plat of Mt Jordan Add none; 34 2S 1W Alton J Warr; none; 247 Mt 206 Am Sav & Lai to Blauer L Olympus Hills No 2 Bangerter; $5,000; 6 Banger-te- r 352 David Huish to Bd of Ed of Sub Jordan Schl Dist; $1; 8 3S IE 211 First Fed Sav 3c Ln to Lewis 353 Golden L Berrett to Bd of G Shoonover; $5,850; 2 31 2 Kearns Towns! te 2 Ed of Jordan Schl Dist; $1; 231 First Sec Bk of Ut to Lion 21 2S IE 378 Junius T Harrow et al to S L Coal Corp; $200,000; 5 30 A etc County; $10; 34 IS IE 156 Air-Ma- Steel-Chamberla- 1, 1958 232 nt in DEEDS Cannon-Papanikol- as $12,-40- 0; 234 236 252 253 254 258 262 263 First Sec Bk of Ut to Lion $10,500; 36 Beckstead Sub Coal Corp; $225,000; 5 30 A 276 Pioneer Sav & Ln to Richard etc B Burton; $12,000; 20 AmendWestern Sav & Ln to Warren ed Plat of Sullivan Sub H Brady; 4 28 D" 277 Ray L Taylor to Richard B Western Sav & Ln to Arthur Burton; $2,750; 20 Amended M Clark; $9,000; 27 IS IE Plat of Sullivan Sub Zkrns First Nat Bk to Irwin 296 Nat Japanese Am Citizens Arnovitz; $8,500; 12 2S 2W Mar-leLeague Cr Union to Rob K Prud Ins Co to Dale H Okuda; $2,932; 8 151 A James Sub $10,600; 28 303 Deseret Fed Sav & Ln to Ben Zions First Nat Bk to Alta C Merrill; $6,177; 8 11 B R Howells; $3,000; 13 2S 1W Prud Fed Sav & Ln to John- 305 Security Life & Accident Co to Norton Platt; $4,500 2 2 son, Bros Gen Cont; $11,000; A 248 Amanda Acres Sub No 2 Pacific Mutual Life Ins to 331 Zions First Nat Bk to Elmer C Pitts; $4,100; 3 22 G Edmund B Howell; $15,000; 340 Western Lite Ins Co to Ruth 182 Upland Terrace E 1 T Stanger; $4,000; 108 Am Sav & Ln to Edward W Brook-wooMombesite Add Woodger; $15,000; 29 343 Valois P Devinny to E StirSub 2 Prud Fed Sav & Ln to Dorling Devinny; $12,628; 1 Add K ian Broadway Gustavenson; $1,426; 348 R Norman Pearce et el to 3 IS 1W Leonard R Pearce; $4,614; 32 First Sec Bk of Ut to Helga IS 1W Olsen etc; $1,300; 16 2 For349 Walker Bk & .Tr to Joseph est Dale L Steadman; $5,650; 30 , 36 John Hancock Mutual Life 2S 1W Ins to Rodney S Rasmussen; r; d 264 267 S1-E- 274 -- A SPECIAL FEATURE SERVICE FOR DAILY RECORD READERS Ifetahle fcectimA On CaAeA ctf focal JhttereAt in the Sumnne Ceurt ctf the State ctf Utah IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ever, refused to grant a jury trial, . . . the record may observing, show that this being a matter ter quiet title, an equitable matter in which a jury could be advisory only, the court did not feel that and that case that either party to an action at law has the right to trial by jury when timely and properly demanded. Thomas Holland, This court Stas already held that an action to quiet title is an acPlaintiff and Appellant, it was in the public interest to side upon v. call a jury Ifco advise (him on a tion at law and either is entitled to a jury trial. matter that he wouldnt be obli- request In Babcock v. Dangerfield (2), LeRoy A Wilson, Jr., as Admin- gated to follow. this court stated: istrator of the Estate of LeRoy A. Wilson,. Deceased; W. L In its pretrial order the trial Appelant commenced an acRasmussen; Veola Hatch Ras- court designated as an issue off tion in the district court to quiet fact the tellowing: mussen, et al.. title to certain property allegDefendants and Respondents. 1. Did the defendants do the ing that he 'is now and ever since the year 1916 has been, the assessement work for the year No. 8853 ending July 1, 1954, on each of owner and entitled to the poo session of said property. The the claims involved in this lawsuit? complaint further alleged that 'defendants claim some right, WORTHEN, Justice: The transcript of the proceedtitle, interest or estate therein, statethe discloses courts the from tellowing ings trial adverse to plaintiff; that said Appeal denial of a jury trial in an action ment by the court: claims are without merit; and to quiet title tto certain unpatented that defendants have no right The Issues I think that whatevere in the property demining claims. will determine this case in view scribed. Appellants then prayed of the agreements are rather In his cotmplaint appellant al'defendants be required to that limited. First, did the defendleged that he is now the owner nature of their ants do assessment work for set forth the of and at all times since Febthat be decreed it that claims'; ruary 20, 1955, has been the the year ending July 1, 1954? defendants have no right, title If they did, that should dispose or interest in the owner of and entitled to the pospremises or of this case session of, against all die world, the title that thereof; ony part excepting the Government Of the The only question involved in determined be of the appellant United States of America, of said this appeal is whether or not in to be good and valid. property. The complaint further this type of action plaintiff has have an absotulte right to have the isalleged that defendants interWhen the case came on for sues of tfact determined by a jury, wrongfully and unlawfully Plaintiffs the trial appellant made proper apfered with right when proper demand has been to the possession and occupancy made therefor. We are of the plication for a jury trial on the . . and opinion that there can no longer of said mining claims . theory that the action was one In law. The trial court, howhave prevented the Plaintiff from be any question as to this right. ever, refused to grant a jury mining and removing uranium Much has been said as to 'die ores and other minerals from said trial. Appellant assigns as error deterto a trial dambeing jury to Plaintiffs right the the trial court's refusal. It is premises of the mined predominance the that also by clear from the pleadings In this alleged age. It issues. the In or equitable legal each of and Defendants case that the action is one at them, Diof v. case Board Norback of interest claim some right, title and law and therefore that a jury or estate in and to the lands and rectors of Church Extension Soc. trial should have been granted . . (Emphasis added.1) mining claims above described (1), this court stated: and in or to the minerals therein, If the issues are legal or We are unable to see wherein but that the said claims . . . are the major issue legal, either the instant case can be distinwithout any right party is entitled upon proper guished from the Babcock case, to a jury trial; but, if dedemand be that he Appellant prayed supra. Admittedly the legal title the or are Issues to the equitable entitled creed the owner, and to the property has not passed resolved to be issues by and lands major the possession of, the from the United States of Ameran application of equity, the ica. We ace off the opinion howmining claims, that it be decreed that defendants have no right legal Issues being merely sub- ever, thalt the mere feet that the therein, that title be quieted in sidiary, the action should be re- naked legal title rests in the garded as equitable and the United States off America Is not plaintiff, and that the court issue rules of equity apply. a restraining order against desufficient to deprive plaintiff off intereference with plainfendants night to have a jury adjudge However, ln that case it was his tiffs possession. There was also held issues off fact in determining the action by the plainan that the in a prayer for damages the beneficial title and the right tiff to establish a claimed ease- to amount of $50,000.00. possession off the mining ment, for an order enjoining de- claims. The plaintiff made due and fendant from asserting a claim as The (basic question for determin.thud? HwwnH for a jury trial against the plaintiff thereto, and ation in this case os indicated and paid the fee. The court, how for damages, Was essentially legal ... ... ... ... in the pretrial order and as dis- city. We are of the opinion that closed in the courts statement re- where the question fa presented garding the issues is the doing off as to the right to possession, assessment .work by defendants. the right to a jury trial is guarIf the defendants did the assess- anteed. Only by such a construcment work for the year ending tion can the section he liberally July 1, 1954, on their claims, then construed to effect whalt we bethat land was not open to location, lieve were the objects and intent and the locations made by plain- of the same. tiff were void and off no force or we interpret Rule effect But that fa purely a fact Furthermore, as U.R.C.P. 39(a) giving the right question which should have been to issue off fact have any legal submitted to a jury and the trial court Improperly refused appel- tried by a jury upon proper demand. That Rule provides: lants request for a jury. . When trial by jury has been We are further off the opinion as provided in Rule demanded that although historically an acthe action shall be designat38, tion tto quiet title was originally ed upon the register of actions equitable and the law courts had as a jury action. The trial of all no jurisdiction to grant such reso issues demanded shall be by lief, that situation does not preThe action. trial of all vail in this state. Formerly the jury so be demanded shall issues equity courts afforded relief becourt ... the unless (2) by jury, cause there was no adequate remmotion its own inior of upon edy at law. In this jurisidtetion, tiative finds that a right of trial however, there is an adequate by jury of some or all of those remedy provided by statute under issues does not exist, . . . (Emthe provision of Chapter 40 off Title 78, U.C.A., 1953. Likewise in phasis added.) this state the distinctions between W T are not unmindful off what law and equity actions have been we quoted froim the Norback abolished by Article VIII, Sec. 19, case, supra, but that Case was of the Constitution off Utah. decided before the adoption off the U.R.C.P. We are further off the opinion that the right to a jury trial in In the case of Buckley v. Cox. this type of case is assured by et al. (3), plaintiff brought an acU.C.A. 1953, which tion to quiet title in a driveway Section declares: in herself and to enjoin the deuse of the fendants from Right to jury trial. In actions same. This courtfurther speaking through for the recovery of specific real Mr. Justice in an MsDonough or with or personal property, unanimous the held that opinion an issue action was one without damares at law. of fact may be tried by a jury, unless a Jury trial is waived. . . Judgment reversed with directo set the case (for jury trial tions It fa our opinion that the above on the factual issues involved. language, if given a reasonable Costs to appellant. and rational construction, must be interpreted as declaring that all issues off fact relating to possesWE CONCUR: sion and rights to possession of specific real or personal property Roger I. McDonough, una determined be by jury may Chief Justice less a jury trial is waived. We J. Allan Crockett,' Justice see no merit to the fine distincto the sometimes tion expressed Leister A. Wade, Justice effect that if a person seeks to recover possession of real propF. Henri Henriod, Justice erty the action is legal and entitles him to a Jury trial, whereas if he Is in possession and seeks . 84 Utah 506, 37 P.2d 339. to prevent any intereference with 2. 98 Utah 10, 91 P.2d 862. his possession the action is equit-able and a jury trial may not be 3. 122 Utah 151, 247 P.2d 277 (1952). had, except ln an advisory capa 78-21-- 1, ... |