OCR Text |
Show Jl'lA l, MONDAY, l'JTO THE J .in: e'Jlt.V,; r '..r1 "t'lx irsv : . .i i h i H.obert t 1 . .on t etux to to ;e?t-nr- .. Fed o f.'ilor. "e Lr. n. or , e M t,l Cnderlof et,ux to 1st j H 'l- - t'jx to :i'Ftnri nor e ' .'Jen t. . vMilh-!-- . Prud jav: Fed :;iV; 'tux to 1st Title; :.1b, Lr to i ' C O. Vail ay Cer.ter J3.dc t,n L., .'.c Title; i"j. 5 tl-'.j- r io.OiKi. -- etux to Prud Coatn r. .lav: Fed r.s I ' RECORD TRUST DEEDS m 1 DAILY i . r, 57,500. 'r ( tal Carol. Ain joHdir:.7 Lar.daal to ! TP, Kav I,ewi s ; 3 L.oo- k- ; . V, ' PtJ Crai" V, Alder et'u. to Cent 5k; SV39.20 FardVii ' 157 Dv?..-- i 'r. 1.1 etux to jnn riM"; jf'r. ' 1 r:t :,0C0. 1 -- .1 fU.L r, 75 . rt-ii- r Sav: i )??, ',1, dlo'.arj '' V f 1 d u , r, .,2 v - 0 y !orrvr. ? J hd w - ?d rrolla ! :.attari: ''itorr: et'ix to ,itla; .St r , to rill? tc o "k, rO:' ar t !rc 315,700. - lc : rsr.l ftux to '0-- :ux tc jin:. ''5? l.xandar rer. Homo ib;,. to et'lX hri. sl.-O- at'-j- ur:.r tux to ':. c to O. to 1st c :iv; l 5. - ;i t to ; ,r'a: jtto:. : :Vi . Grans", . Colli- s 0 Ditto: ' 1 - ::illi: . t5? S ; rt jav; slj.UO. '.:dr .". I. Prud tux 3 rr, rs.r-- -- 3 W Kuhnor ot.ix to "a to Title: fez,; ? rH jav, ! " t e; Jli3 n P 3a v: 33.'!. 000. .loft-or- :i 't'j: - : - Jafio , eror'.C' . "r; i)r,o Ti r,T o : i.i.m .,5. ; rWl r er s tux to Co t" ..tn lot to "r ntix l to Gam 3 Christensen Const ist Fed oav; 322,500. 1 -- t Ju.OOO. . r Itr ?itl n; 1:., I "n a r. : J. v In Tlie Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah in conformity with the rules of procedure. Transamenca Title Insurance Company, etc. Plaintiff and Respondent, The significant . No. Ii9l FILED June 29 v. United Resources, jurisdiction are: L. 1 Defendant's Answer Cummir.gs. Clerk CROCKETT, Chief Justice: Defendant United Resources appeals from a summary judgment which accorded full laith and credit to an Arizona judgment in favor of plair..ili. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. Defendant's contention 13 that the Ar.zona court did not have jurisdiction; and that because it so asserted in ;:s answer, there was thus created an issue of material fact upon which i: should be given an opportunity to present evidence, and that it was thus error o grant a summary judgment against it. There are some principles which should be recognized as underlying The first is the obligation to give "lull faith and credit" to the judgments of the court of a sister state; ar.d to regard hem as res judicata of the merits of the action. However, this presupposes that jurisdiction existed in, and was acquired over the parties, by the court which rendered the judgment; and a regularity of procedure which constituted due process of law: and these latter are matters which, if properly raised, may be asserted as defenses in an action on a foreign judgment. Defendant s argument that the averment of no jurisdiction in its answer raises an issue of fact is grounded upon a misconception and an over - emphasis on one aspect of the problem. We do not disagree with the proposition that settlement of an issue of jurisdiction may involve determination of fact3. But the ultimate ruling on an issue of jurisdiction is one cf law as applied to facts as properly determined. The more fundamental concern in this case is whether the defendant has so raised an issue as to material facts upon which the question of jurisdiction would depend. Suriuii.iry judgments are governed by our 3. As an affirmative allegation herein, defendant alleges that if any judgment was obtained in the State of Arizona and as pleaded herein, the same was void for the reason that there was not proper jurisdiction had of either of these defendants. Plaintiff's Request for Interrogatories: 2. had no State the basis of the contention that the Arizona court jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant's Objection to Interrogatory Interrogatory 2 is a request for a legal opinion or the law of the case and it is not the subject of this discovery as far as facts in the case are concerned. Emphasis added. Rule bit. U. R.C. P. , The important thing to be noted from the above is that, except for the general averment of no proper jurisdiction, the defendant stated nothing whatsoever concerning any fact as a basis for that conclusion; and this in spite of specific Interrogatory No. 2 asking for such information. This general statement of such a legal conclusion, coupled with what amounts to a failure and refusal to make any specification with respect to any issue of fact, amounts to nothing more than an attempt to challenge jurisdiction as a matter of law. The trial court was justified in so regarding it, and in ruling that it did not raise a question as to a material fact, and consequently, in granting the summary judgment. Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff (respondent). WE CONCUR: which E. R. Callister, (c ): The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with allidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and tli.it the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Emphasis added. . . 2: 1. the problem here presented. states in part of the "submissions" concerning the issue of 1970 Inc., etc., Defendant and Appellant. parts Jr., JuBtice . thus clear from this rule that when upon the basis of the pleadings, depositions, answers . . . , admissions and affidavits, which we herein reler to as "submissions," a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. the motion for summary judgment should be granted. But if it appears from such determinative of the rights of the parties, it should be denied and a trial should be had to resolve the disputed issues. The purpose of the discovery and of the summary judgment procedure provided for in our rules is to furnish a method for searching out and facilitating the resolution of issues which are not in dispute, and of settling the rights of the parties without the time, trouble and expense of a trial. It is indispensable to the carrying out of that purpose that parties furnish essential information when it is requested R. L. Tuckett, Justice F. Henri Henriod, Justice A. H. Ellett, Justice It is "" U. S. Constitution, Art. IV. Sec. 1; 2. Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Min. b Smelting Co. , 225 U.S. Ill, 134 (1912); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U. S. 430 (1943). 3. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 255 (1958); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1877); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. , 355 U. S. 220 (1957); Conn v. Whitmore, 9 Utah 2d 250, 342 P. 2d 871 (1959). 4. Duple r v. Yates, 10 Utah 2d 251, 351 P. 2d 624 (I960). 5. See Rules 31, 33 and 37, U.R. C.P. I |