Hanson v. Associates Finance Inc.

Utah Supreme Court

Hanson v. Associates Finance Inc.

496 P.2d 266, 27 Utah 2d 349, 1972 Utah LEXIS 986

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1972

DocketNo. 12556

StatusPublished

This text of 496 P.2d 266 (Hanson v. Associates Finance Inc.) 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

Hanson v. Associates Finance Inc., 496 P.2d 266, 27 Utah 2d 349, 1972 Utah LEXIS 986 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no-cause-of-action judgment after trial based on an alleged conversion in 1964 of a home radio antenna and lead-in wire, and for damages for a trespass incident to the conversion. Affirmed, with costs to defendants.

In spite of plaintiff’s urgence, the judgment was based on believable, although disputed evidence, to the effect that he knew who owned the property and stood mute during its repossession, — inconsistent with his claim of ownership or the concept of trespass de bonis asportatis and quaere [350]*350clausum fregit, — and that there was, therefore,, no basis for an estoppel of defendants’ claim of ownership, as asserted by plaintiff.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no-cause-of-action judgment after trial based on an alleged conversion in 1964 of a home radio antenna and lead-in wire, and for damages for a trespass incident to the conversion. Affirmed, with costs to defendants.

In spite of plaintiff’s urgence, the judgment was based on believable, although disputed evidence, to the effect that he knew who owned the property and stood mute during its repossession, — inconsistent with his claim of ownership or the concept of trespass de bonis asportatis and quaere [350]*350clausum fregit, — and that there was, therefore,, no basis for an estoppel of defendants’ claim of ownership, as asserted by plaintiff.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 P.2d 266, 27 Utah 2d 349, 1972 Utah LEXIS 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-associates-finance-inc-utah-1972.