Brereton v. Pierpont

Utah Supreme Court

Brereton v. Pierpont

82 P. 1135, 29 Utah 489, 1905 Utah LEXIS 40

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1905

DocketNo. 1672

StatusPublished

This text of 82 P. 1135 (Brereton v. Pierpont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brereton v. Pierpont, 82 P. 1135, 29 Utah 489, 1905 Utah LEXIS 40 (Utah 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

STRAUP, J.

This was an action brought by plaintiff to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note executed by defendant Pierpont. The defendant Waterman purchased the property from Pierpont subsequent to the execution and recordation of the mortgage. The only question presented at the trial, and on the merits of this appeal,. is whether the note had been paid. The consideration of the question involves mere matters of fact, and not of law. The finding of the trial court was that the note had been paid. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain this finding is challenged. A review of the record satisfies us that the finding is sufficiently supported by the evidence. Inasmuch as. we cannot-see that any good purpose would be subserved in setting forth the evidence tending to support the finding, we deem it unnecessary to do so. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs.

BABTOH, C. J., and McCABTY, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STRAUP, J.

This was an action brought by plaintiff to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note executed by defendant Pierpont. The defendant Waterman purchased the property from Pierpont subsequent to the execution and recordation of the mortgage. The only question presented at the trial, and on the merits of this appeal,. is whether the note had been paid. The consideration of the question involves mere matters of fact, and not of law. The finding of the trial court was that the note had been paid. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain this finding is challenged. A review of the record satisfies us that the finding is sufficiently supported by the evidence. Inasmuch as. we cannot-see that any good purpose would be subserved in setting forth the evidence tending to support the finding, we deem it unnecessary to do so. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs.

BABTOH, C. J., and McCABTY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 P. 1135, 29 Utah 489, 1905 Utah LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brereton-v-pierpont-utah-1905.