Meyer v. Evans

Utah Supreme Court

Meyer v. Evans

395 P.2d 726, 16 Utah 2d 56, 1964 Utah LEXIS 305

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 16, 1964

Docket10130

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 395 P.2d 726 (Meyer v. Evans) 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

Meyer v. Evans, 395 P.2d 726, 16 Utah 2d 56, 1964 Utah LEXIS 305 (Utah 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in .a case where, under a written leasehold, plaintiffs assert a claim for unpaid rentals, .and defendants say they were forgiven by plaintiffs’ taking possession after defendants’ abandonment of the property. Affirmed with costs to plaintiffs.

The defendants, after signing a lease, left the property several months before the lease term. The evidence indicates that this was done without knowledge of the lessors, who upon becoming acquainted with this fact, without being able to get the key from ■defendants, took possession, changed locks •on the back door, but not the front door, of the premises, advertised for re-lease or sale .and, in our opinion, did about everything .a landlord could have done to preserve the property and mitigate any damages.

The trial court gave judgment for unpaid ■rentals, and we concur with him under the facts of this case.

McDONOUGH, CALLISTER, CROCKETT and WADE, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in .a case where, under a written leasehold, plaintiffs assert a claim for unpaid rentals, .and defendants say they were forgiven by plaintiffs’ taking possession after defendants’ abandonment of the property. Affirmed with costs to plaintiffs.

The defendants, after signing a lease, left the property several months before the lease term. The evidence indicates that this was done without knowledge of the lessors, who upon becoming acquainted with this fact, without being able to get the key from ■defendants, took possession, changed locks •on the back door, but not the front door, of the premises, advertised for re-lease or sale .and, in our opinion, did about everything .a landlord could have done to preserve the property and mitigate any damages.

The trial court gave judgment for unpaid ■rentals, and we concur with him under the facts of this case.

McDONOUGH, CALLISTER, CROCKETT and WADE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 P.2d 726, 16 Utah 2d 56, 1964 Utah LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-evans-utah-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack