OCR Text |
Show CHATTEL MORTGAGES 929 (Continued from Page 2) 180 E Gregson, to Natl Fin do; $1,200; John C Reif, Rebecca, fum 930 Thelmla L Saunders, 224 Kensington, to Natl Fin Co; $1,032; fum 931 Susie Thatcher, 774 E 7th S, to Naltl Fin Co; $1,032; Sum 932 Martin C Ehninger, Winona, 653 Coatsville, to Natl Fin Co; 933 934 935 936 937 938 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Harold W Bodon, by his guardian Thelma Walker, 1018 Crandall Ave, to Pioneer Fin & Th; $702; ad litem, Heinrich Bodon, car & fum Plaintiff and Appelant, Francis J Galland, Jane, 2147 Broadmore, to Household Fin v. Corp; $1,008; fum Emil Suhrmann, dba Suhrmanns John W Taylor, Afton, 5131 S 2050 W, to Dial Ind Fin Co; $953; South Temple Meat Company turn and Albert Noorda and Sam L. Fred H Peterson, Marjorie, Kearns, to Dial Ind Fin; $1,172; fum Goss dint Jordan Meat A Live David W Murdock, Anna, Provo, to Seaboard Fin Co; $1,774; stock Co., car & fum Defendants and Respondents. Merlin L Taylor, Sylvia, 4842 Memory Lane, to Seaboard Fin No. 8715 Co; $1,301; fum 3 Extracts from Recent Decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Utah turn $1,800; Pare THE DAILY RECORD Monday, July 28, 1958 ive and the duty of the trial court to pass aipo nthe adequacy of the verdict and to order any necessary modification thereof. Nevertheless, when the verdiat is outside the limits of any reasonable appraisal of damages as shown by the evidence, it should not be lermitted to stand, and if the rial court fails to rectify it, we are obliged to make the correction on appeal (12). Our survey of the evidence impels the conclusion that the $100 awarded is so small as to come within the above mile, and that t should either be increased or vacateed entirely. It is ordered that upon remand Ito the district court, the judgment be increased Court, sharply main opinions clusion, and there is reason differ with the unsupported con- demonstrate that fpr such differen-iation- . Before canvassing the author!-ies- , I feel constrained to. question the soundness of what I believe are several loose generalities presented to the reader in the main opinion. It is said that: The contention here Is that the verdict is outside the limits of what appears justifiable un- der the evidence to the extent that it should not be permitted Justice (Continued fum to stand. In such instances the from Wednesdays Record) 940 Douglas D Matthews, Elaine, Midvale, to Seaboard Fin Co; $1,173; remedy is to order a modifica(8). This court, through Chief fum tion of the verdict to ring it Justice McDonough, said: 843 Robert L Austin, 1978 Wyoming, to Cont Bk & Tr Co; $1,130; within the evidence; and the If inadequacy or excessivepiano adverse party is given the ness of the verdict . . . shows o $500, and that the defendant choice of accepting it or taking such a disregard . . .of the evi- lave 10 days in which to agree a new trial. dence or the instructions . . . to accept such midification, and Such language is a disarming as to satisfy the court that the f he fails to do so, a new trial 9334 misstatement of the law of this verdict was' rendered under is granted. Costs to plainitlff. Co, Ltd, 2510 S West Temple; Harold 4191 state to date. Without citation 1940 S such disregard or misapprehenE; and Val W Palmer, Logan, Ut Christiansen, WE CONCUR: 9335 Mount Air Shopping Center, of any authority, and admitting sion of the evidence or influHighland Drive; Ralph d L Jones, 5246 Highland Drive; and John F Trunnell, 5557 Highthat this court has never ence of passion or prejudice, Roger I. McDonough, land Drive an increase in verdicts, in Chief Justice then the court may exercise its one A. Lester of fell Justice interest in Wade, the discretion swoop it applies to the See to concurrule as reduction of verdicts Justice Worthens Justice and grant a new trial, to case article. the of upping them. ring opinion at end of citing Saltas v. Affleck (9), The main opinion volunteers wherein tacit approval was given . . . ,P.2d that in Saltas v. Affleck (1) .Utah 2d.. to an order of the trial court di- 1. tacit approval was given to an for an of award that $800 recting of the trial cort directing U.R.C.P order 'the death of plaintiffs son be in 2. Rule 59(a) (5) an de1950 that added Jan. award of $800 for the the 1, adopted THE DAILY RECORD, Whats official coal of said Court this 10th day creased to $2,400, which of July, 1958. off as death or of plaintiffs son be ininadequacy fendant whs directed to accept damage What, and The Western Mineral ALVIN KEDDINGTON, See creased to $2,400, which the detake a new trial. ground. Clerk concurring opinSurvey have been approved by ion herein of Worthen, J. fendant was directed to accept We (revert to the pivotal questhe Judges of the Third Judicial (SEAL) By JACOB WEILER, or take a new trial. tion: Under the rules above stated, 3. Hill v. Warner, 4 Utah 2d 166, District of the Stole of Utah as a Deputy 290 Mounv. The court did not give tacit apin P.2d Watson Fuller so & Crltchlow, 448, of is the award $100 small, newspaper qualified to publish Attorneys for PetitionerWamock, 6 tain 2d which Utah to 385, proval to such an increase (and the damages Sculpture, comparison notices, advertisements, etc., as Date of first publication July 14, 1958. would 314 842. the defendant stood on his rights P.2d necessarily be found from provided by the statutes of the W OJ 4. to have a new trial refusing to See excellent exposition any reasonable appraisal of the State of Utah. NOTICE this point of view in dissent- pay any such additur) (but simply evidence, that this court shoulc TINTIC OUTPOST MININQ COMPANY the principle that A UTAH CORPORATION some affirma ing opinion of Justice Stone, reaffirmed the grant plaintiff 825 South Tenth Eaat 8treet a where is inadequate, verdict in concurred to CJ it? Probate and with tive relief by Hughes, respect Salt Lake City 2, Utah and Brandeis and Gaxdozo, JJ the court could grant a new trial. If we adopted plaintiffs view NOTICE OP DELINQUENCY NOTICE: There are delinquent upon the Guardianship Notices following in Dimick v. Sdhiedt, 293 U.S It is hardly fair to cite that case of described stock on account of of the evidence, particularly is 474, 79 L. Ed. 603, 55 S.C. 296 as a prologue to the establishment levied on the 25th of his subjective symptoms, there Consult clerk of district coart assessment Judc, 1958, the eeveral amounts setday 95 A.L.R. 1150. of a new and hitherto unsupported or the respective signers for the names of the respective share- no doubt that very substantia 5. rule. See discussion in Jensen holders as follows: damages would be justified. The further information. 44 D. & R. G. W. RR. Co., Shares Amt. difficulty with his position is tha After inquiring as to whether 183 Reginald Beals 1000 8 1.00 Utah 100, 138 P. 1185; Pauly the award was so small as to justi831 Jose P. Castro 8000 8.00 die jury took the view that his NOTICE TO CREDITOM 874 Willard V. Fuller v. McCarthy, 109 Utah 431, fy affirmative relief, the opinion 5000 5 00 illness was of no great conse5000 Estate of SARA SMITH ROSENBLATT, P07 Willard V. Puller 5.00 184 P.2d 123; Eleganiti v. Cole then assumes that such relief re738 Louis E. Ooff 20000 20.00 quence and under the rule of Deceased. 739 Louis E. Ooff 15000 15.00 Co., 50 Utah 585, 168 P. 266; should be an arbitrary increase Creditors will present claims with vouch- 740 Louis E. Goff view, we are obliged (to survey the 5000 5 00 ers to the undersigned at 800 Continental 141 Louis E. Ooff Stephens Ranch & L. S. Co. v. of the judgment. Rule 59 does not 10000 10.00 evidence in the light most favorBank Building, Salt Lake City, Utah, ou Pauline Hamilton U. 5000 5.00 able to their finding (10). NeverP. RR. Co., 48 Utah 528, sanction such conclusion. Nor does or before the 10th day. of September, 889 Pauline Hamilton 6000 6.00 1958. in161 P. 459. AD., any decision of this court. Nor do 890 Pauline Hamilton 1000 1.00 theless, the facts which were 832 Fred R. Lewis 2000 B. A. ROSENBLATT, admin2.00 disputably established must be 6. General damages reduced: the authorities generally. To date 2000 2.00 istrator with Will Annexed 454 H. C. Merrill Madham v. Foley, 120 Utah the only relief in such cases has 500 .50 considered. of the estate of Bara Smith 674 H. C. Merrill 693 H. C. Merrill 1000 1.00 235 P.2d 497; Shepherd been to grant a new trial. Rosenblatt, Deceased. was 416, a Mr. Bodon vigorous 758 H. C. Merrill 2950 2.95 v. 8c Moffat to athletics. This brings us to the authoriFabian, Clendenln, 772 H. C. Merrill Mabey, Payne, 60 Utah 140, 206 P. 3050 3.05 young (man inclined 494 V. E. 8now Attorneys for Administrator 1000 re1.00 His resistance to the trichinosis 1098; punitive damages ties. Utahs own Justice SutherV. E. 8now 1000 1.00 Date of first publication July 7, A.D., 712 v. Oldroyd, 1 land, speaking for the United Wilson duced: the than was Leo 485 1000 Peterson 1.00 greater undoubtedly W 1958. 374 Reese T. Wilson 1000 1.00 Utah 2d 362, 267 P.2d 759; State Supreme Court (2) had the would be, and 375 Reese T. Wilson 1000 1.00 average persons v. Neff, 72 Utah following to say as to additurs: less. his 530 Falkenberg Reese T. Wilson . . . 8000 8.00 consequently suffering NOTICE TO CREDITORS and In accordance with law: and in order His doctor characterized his case 258, 269 P. 1008. The controlling distinction beEstate of ANNA 8. DORIUB JOHNSON, of the Board of Directors, made on the new to As 7. to hosnot tween He was the power of the court grant authority sometimes known as ANNA 8. D. JOHN' 25th day of June, 1958, so many shares as moderate. see Rule SON, also sometimes known as ANNIE of each parcel of stock as may be neces59(a) U.R.C.P., and that of the jury is that the but had to remain home trials, 8 JOHNSON, also sometimes known a sary, will be sold at 12.30 p.m. August pitalized, U.C.A. Sec. former has the power to deterformerly ANNE SOPHIA JOHNSON, Deceased. 16. 1958 at 825 8outh Tenth East 8treet, and abed for about a week at the deto to Lake Cslt pay the 1943; City 2, Utah, onset of the disease. He testified grant a new trial mine the law and the latter to Creditors will present claims with vouch' assessment together with the cost see Stamp v. ers to the undersigned at 1004 Boston linquent to returned determine the facts . . . Where when he conditionally work, that of advertising and expense of sale. Building, Salt Lake City, Utah, on or beO. 2d RR. B. U. 5 Utah Calderwood, 397, P. he Co., the verdict returned by the jury a (alt bookbinding company) fore the 10th day of November, AD., 1958 Secretary v. Wheiat 303 reP.2d 283; 279, which is palpably and grossly inadeto duties request Date of first publication July 25, 1958. had JOHNDORIUB RICKARD 122 G. D. W. R. & RR. of Estate the Executor Co., exertion for SON, quate or excessive, it should quired little physical of Anna S. Doxtus Johnson, P.2d 250 Utah a 932; not be permitted to stand; but, 418, a time. It was shown that within sometimes known as Anna B. & NOTICE v. D. Johnson, also sometimes Dep. in that event, both parties reOgden Ry. few weeks he resumed his athletic known ss Annie 8. Johnson 98. 218 P. NOTICE OP SPECIAL MEETING Co., 62 Utah 115, main entitled, as they were enactivities, swimming and soccer, also sometimes known as OP STOCKHOLDERS OP 1 Utah 2d 1, 261 P.2d 670. 8. some Anne Sophia Johnson, Deof he titled In the first instance, to complained although BONNEVILLE BASIN URANIUM ceased. 176. 105 99 P.2d 9. CORPORATION Utah in 381, a jury properly determine arms his in and have weakness legs Emerson C. Willey, 239 Notice la hereby given that a special v. RR. 10. U. Toomer P. so. testified Co., that The doctor, the question of liability and the Attorney for Executor meeting of the stockholders of BONNE- doing 121 37. P.2d Utah 163, extent of the injury by an asData of first publication July 7, A.D. VILLE BASIN URANIUM CORPORATION upon a checkup nine months after Lake Hotel will Salt in held W the be Utah, 11. Footnote 1958. 1, supra. sessment of damages. Both are the illness he was almost symptom City, Utah, on the 30th day of August, W. & D. G. 12. R. See Jensen v. 1958, at 10:00 oclock A.M. for the folfree; and further, that although questions of fact. Where the at R.R footnote lowing objects and purposes: too 2, be to supra, Co., was then posiverdict is excessive, the practice it early 1. To consider and vote upon the folNOTICE rePacific ef1192 the of ill to about tive of page Ar amendments the substituting a remission of any permanent lowing proposed IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT of Justides Incorporation: the cases court, UTAH moderatee such in OP STATE the excess for a new trial Is not through port, COURT OP THE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Article VII fects, to IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY Our tice addition none amendare left. In power without plausible support in the Straup: (as heretofore amended) Is hereby usually dised to read: off a abuse correct which to the above basic facts plain view that what remains Is inThe authorised capitalisation of this In the Matter of the Voluntary With be cretion cannot must be reckoned with, he lost cluded in the verdict, in that drawal from the State of Utah of Call corporation Is Two Million (82,000,000.00) Twenty Million doubted. fornla Brewing Company, a corpora dollars divided Into and sense that it has been found the weeks for $55 wages shares of a par value of ten tlon of the 8tate of California. total a one doctor stock of Is class, All his for cents UPON bill, $14.00 (10c). by the jury, and that the reNOTICE OP HEARINO as WITHDRAWAL common, voting, assessable, provided of $69.00 outof pocket damages. 1IENRIOD, Justice: (Dissenting) APPLICATION FOR mittitur has the effect of mereCivil NO. 117178 by Utah law. the with I but this him awarded Directors. of Board agree Of a the $100 2. To select dissent, ly lopping off an excrescence. 3. To transact such other business as leaves only $31.00 as general dam- majority opinions admission that But whore the verdict is too Notice Is hereby given that the eppll may legally come before the meeting or which case in inno of We know, for the pain, distress and small, an Increase by the court cation of California Brewing Company, any adjournment or adjournments thereof ages award an increased court has is a bald addition of something The Board of Directors of BONNEVILLE convenience of having the disease. this a corporation of the State of California, has howBASIN URANIUM CORPORATION cannot I of of In no sense can be said We 'the agree, of affirin which said damages. withdrawal corpor responsibility for voluntary fixed 5:00 o'clock P.M. the close of busito be included in the verdict. a tlon from the 8tate of Utah, as pre ness on the 25th day of July, 1958, as the court to be indulgent toward ever, with the next sentence determination the verdict of the aented to the District Court of the Third the hour and data for tha When, therefore, the trial court jury, and not which states: But there appears Judicial District In and for Balt Lake of stockholders entitled to vole at said to disturb it so reason for to no be is within as persuasive it here found that the damages now on file with meeting. long County, State of Utah, toe heard on the wlli between differentiation Directors of accordBoard doing thereof, of the Clerk in direction the the bounds of reason, awarded by the Jury were so any By 27th day of August, 1958, at 2:30 P.M. Of BONNEVILLE BASIN URANIUM COR- ance orand an so set award) forth (increasing with the principles inadequate as to entitle plainof said day or as toon thereafter as the PORATION. of reduction because the a A. Olen Wright Schnei case of matter can be heard In the Courtroom to a new trial, how can it tiff in dering the ( companion Division No. 1 of the above entitled court authorSecretary The excessive. is also verdict v. and Suhrmann der Salt at (11); In the City and County Building . Date of first publication July 18, 1958 (Continued on page 4) Lake City, Utah. that it is primarily the preroga- - ities, including the U. S. Supreme 939 Dean C Johnson, Jackie, Murray to Seaboard Fin Co; $1,091; CROCKETT: . . Affidavits of Ownership Palmer-Chridtfianse- n 3003-300- 5 sanc-ione- LEGAL NOTICES oppo-ai- te - 104-40-- 2, Mc-Affe- ... (20,-000.0- -- . WITNESS the hand of the Clerk and e |