Horn v. Dudley

Utah Supreme Court

Horn v. Dudley

151 P. 352, 47 Utah 25, 1915 Utah LEXIS 90

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 7, 1915

DocketNo. 2760

StatusPublished

This text of 151 P. 352 (Horn v. Dudley) 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

Horn v. Dudley, 151 P. 352, 47 Utah 25, 1915 Utah LEXIS 90 (Utah 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

STRAUP, C. J.

This is a suit on a promissory note of $200. It is agreed between the parties that the note was made in consideration of the plaintiff, the payee, doing, or causing to be done, for the defendant, the payor, certain assessment work on an irrigation canal. The plaintiff contended, and gave evidence to support the contention, that he did the assessment work, or, at least, that the defendant was given credit for it. On the contrary, the defendant contended, and gave evidence to support the contention, that the plaintiff did not do the work; that the defendant was not given credit for it; and that he, to avoid the sale of his stock in the company, was required to do, and did, the work himself. The court found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

The appeal presents but one question, sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

Finding, as we do, evidence to support the findings, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed. Such is the order, with costs.

FRICK and McCARTY, JJ., concur.

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

STRAUP, C. J.

This is a suit on a promissory note of $200. It is agreed between the parties that the note was made in consideration of the plaintiff, the payee, doing, or causing to be done, for the defendant, the payor, certain assessment work on an irrigation canal. The plaintiff contended, and gave evidence to support the contention, that he did the assessment work, or, at least, that the defendant was given credit for it. On the contrary, the defendant contended, and gave evidence to support the contention, that the plaintiff did not do the work; that the defendant was not given credit for it; and that he, to avoid the sale of his stock in the company, was required to do, and did, the work himself. The court found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

The appeal presents but one question, sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

Finding, as we do, evidence to support the findings, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed. Such is the order, with costs.

FRICK and McCARTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 P. 352, 47 Utah 25, 1915 Utah LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-v-dudley-utah-1915.