Parkinson v. Amundson

Utah Supreme Court

Parkinson v. Amundson

250 P.2d 944, 122 Utah 443, 1952 Utah LEXIS 219

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1952

DocketNo. 7842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 P.2d 944 (Parkinson v. Amundson) 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

Parkinson v. Amundson, 250 P.2d 944, 122 Utah 443, 1952 Utah LEXIS 219 (Utah 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a finding that in the purchase of a house plaintiffs overpaid defendants by mistake. Affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Defendants agreed to build a house for plaintiffs.. A contract was signed in April 1950. The consideration was $14,500. Plaintiffs made some payments. When nearly completed the house was appraised by a Veterans’ Administration appraiser, who set the completed fair value at $13,750. Thereupon the parties wrote another contract for that figure.

Prior to completion some changes were made with respect to details of construction. A dispute arose as to who should bear the additional costs. Plaintiffs claim that misinformation given the escrow by defendants resulted in an overpayment by mistake. Defendants claim there is still a balance owing, for which they counterclaimed. Hence the evidence is in conflict, and both parties concede that the matter is one of arithmetic, not law.

The trial judge, as fact finder, concluded that the second contract was a re-write of the first, taking into account [445]*445payments which had been made in the interim; that the price was $14,500, plus $42 for additional tile work; that plaintiffs paid $14,801 and were entitled to $100 credit for insulation installed by them which defendants failed to complete, making a total payment of $14,901, and an overpayment of $359.

Defendants insist that plaintiff should be charged for added expense of changes made in the plans requiring extra wiring, cement work, etc. The trial judge apparently believed plaintiffs’ account of the transaction, — that the changes were included in the price stated in the second contract. There is evidence of sufficient substance to sustain the finding, justifying affirmance under principles heretofore enunciated by this court.¹ The trial court awarded $250 as a fee for plaintiffs’ attorney, and the figure does not appear unreasonable.

WOLFE, C. J., and WADE, McDONOUGH, 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 finding that in the purchase of a house plaintiffs overpaid defendants by mistake. Affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Defendants agreed to build a house for plaintiffs.. A contract was signed in April 1950. The consideration was $14,500. Plaintiffs made some payments. When nearly completed the house was appraised by a Veterans’ Administration appraiser, who set the completed fair value at $13,750. Thereupon the parties wrote another contract for that figure.

Prior to completion some changes were made with respect to details of construction. A dispute arose as to who should bear the additional costs. Plaintiffs claim that misinformation given the escrow by defendants resulted in an overpayment by mistake. Defendants claim there is still a balance owing, for which they counterclaimed. Hence the evidence is in conflict, and both parties concede that the matter is one of arithmetic, not law.

The trial judge, as fact finder, concluded that the second contract was a re-write of the first, taking into account [445]*445payments which had been made in the interim; that the price was $14,500, plus $42 for additional tile work; that plaintiffs paid $14,801 and were entitled to $100 credit for insulation installed by them which defendants failed to complete, making a total payment of $14,901, and an overpayment of $359.

Defendants insist that plaintiff should be charged for added expense of changes made in the plans requiring extra wiring, cement work, etc. The trial judge apparently believed plaintiffs’ account of the transaction, — that the changes were included in the price stated in the second contract. There is evidence of sufficient substance to sustain the finding, justifying affirmance under principles heretofore enunciated by this court.¹ The trial court awarded $250 as a fee for plaintiffs’ attorney, and the figure does not appear unreasonable.

WOLFE, C. J., and WADE, McDONOUGH, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 P.2d 944, 122 Utah 443, 1952 Utah LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkinson-v-amundson-utah-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack