OCR Text |
Show DAILY THE PAGE SIX MONDAY, RECORD MAY 10, 1971 In the District Court, Probate Division, Wednesday has been set for hearing on A.D. 19 71 o'clock 9 at , 12 the t day of May . at the Courts Building, Third District A. M. has been set for hearing on Wednesday A.D. Court, 240 East 4th South, in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. 19 71 , at o'clock 9 A M. the , day of May 12 at the Courts Building, Third District Court, 240 East 4th South, in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. VITNESS the Clerk of said Court, with the seal of day Perris S, Jensen 320 So. 3rd E. -- Evans 6 Rawlings, Roberts Deputy Clerk , A.D. day of Clerk fa Martha Larson By. the Clerk of said Court, with the seal thereof affixed, this 71 , A.D. 19 April Sterling W, WITNESS '7 thereof affixed, this 530 Judge & Black W. Building By Sterling 19 Evans 71 Clerk fa Martha Larson Deputy Clerk In the Matter of the Eatate of NOTICE EVERETT POPE In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah So. 575 Deceaaed. James R. petition of The In'tbe Matter of the Estdte of Olive K. Peterson, Deceased, Shirley B. Higbee, Appellant, Virgle Gilmore and Eugene Edward Butcher, Respondents. Creer, Administrator of the estate of Everett Pope dec eased. praying for confirmation of sale of the following described real estate, 2200 S- - 7200 W. (this is the property on which the concrete it: No. 12307 FILED May 5, 1971 L. M. Cummings, Clerk to-w- products has been conducted) HENRIOD, Justice: concrete products forms Mis. Appeal from a judgment modifying a judgment with respect to a will Inventory of unsold concrete products contest. Remanded for a new hearing. Chevrolet truck 1953 Clark fork On controverted evidence, a signed and witnessed will was admitted to probate by a district judge who succeeded another district judge who had resigned, which latter had entered a judgment declaring the will to have been revoked. All this on exactly the same evidence and record. lift cement Mixer Phoenix Land and Livestock Company to for the to-w- of sum $ , and upon 12,500. the following terms, it: as appears from the return of sale, filed in this Court, has been set for hearing onWednesday A.D. 19 71 , Court, 240 at 9 o'clock A. M. the 12 , May at the Courts Building, Third District the Clerk of said Court, with the seal thereof affixed, this C. W. By s Sterling , a.D. 19 71 Martha Larson In the Matter of the Estate of Callister, Jr., Chief Justice R. L Tuckett,:.Jsficef ic? A. H. Ellett, Justice NOTICE R0SELLA NIS0HGER No. petition 0f William E. R. Clerk Evans Deputy Clerk Tli WE CONCUR: 3 April day of Pugsley t00 El Paso Gas Bldg The case is returned for a new and plenary hearing before the trict court from which this appeal arose. East 4th South, in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. WITNESS Philip day of One of the subscribing witnesses, who also drafted the will, at first did not remember its execution, but on examining his files, recalled the incident that occurred many years before, and was confident he had not prepared and executed two duplicate originals thereof. The first district judge, who later resigned to assume a different post, said that such a duplicate original had been executed and had been destroyed. The successor judge, who was appointed, and on the same record, amended the first judge's findings, conclusions and judgment on motion therefor, and as a matter of law held the first judge's conclusions and decree to have been in error, before he also was replaced by another and third judge in an election. This court has misgivings about such procedure, without any further evidence having been taken, - particularly when it was represented to us that the second subscribing witness to the will was available, - an important witness to the fact of whether there were two wills signed by the testatrix and whether both were witnessed by both the subscribing witnesses, in the presence of each other, etc. C. J. Allan Crockett, Justice 573Sj The Family Lawyer Nisonger, Executor of the estate 0fsea Theft from Your Car jjiaoner deceased, rrayinc for confirmation of sale of the following described real esMto, t w i t : located at 857 E. 27th South Ethel, visiting at a friend' house, wai positive she had left her car locked. Yet, when ihe relumed to the car, the found a front door ajar. Sure enough, a gold bracelet placed in the glove compartment had vanished. c to Dale L. and Ann C. Uwenson The next day ihe put in a claim under her homeowner' policy. But the company for the to-w- sum of $ 13,500.00 , and upon the following terms, it: as appears from the return of sale, filed in this Court, i f refused to pay off, on the ground that the car ihowed no "visible mark" of burglary, a required by her policy. Undeterred, Ethel filed suit. It i true there were no marks on the car door," the (aid in court. Probably the thief got in with a mailer key or a coat hanger. But Ihe fact remain that my bracelet wai itolen. The company ia trying to hide behind a technicality." Neverthclesa, Ihe court turned down her claim. The judge laid n imurance company hat the right to put reasonable limita into it policy, adding: "A pereon get what he pay insurance profor, whether it tection or anything else. The requirement of "viiible mark i ermmon in burglary One purpose is to lessen the chance of an inside job, in which a policyho' ' r report a theft that never really happened. On the other hand, a policy may provide coverage even for an unlocked car, provided it it not left "unattended." In one cue, a TV et wu stolen from an unlocked car, which the owner had left at the curb for only about five minute. Trying later to collect insurance, he argued that this wu too brief a time to make the car unattended." But again, a court denied the claim. The court laid even five minutes of opportunity ia enough to tempt a thief. Similar problems of interpretation may arise in the burglary of a building. One case involved the picking of a lock on a grocery More. To meet the requirement of "visible mark," the grocer pointed out that scratches on the lock, made by burglar! tools, could be seen microscopically. Were such marks visible"? A court decided they were indeed, and mid the insurance company pey for the lose. The judge said "visible" meant able to be seen rather then actually seen. The microscope, he said, merely made clearer whet wu already there. tion dis- |