Young Et Ux. v. Hansen Et Ux.

Utah Supreme Court

Young Et Ux. v. Hansen Et Ux.

218 P.2d 674, 117 Utah 607, 1950 Utah LEXIS 137

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMay 16, 1950

Docket7426

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 P.2d 674 (Young Et Ux. v. Hansen Et Ux.) 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

Young Et Ux. v. Hansen Et Ux., 218 P.2d 674, 117 Utah 607, 1950 Utah LEXIS 137 (Utah 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

LATIMER, Justice.

This is a companion case to Young v. Hansen, 117 Utah 691, 218 P. 2d 666, this day decided. The facts alleged in the case are substantially the same as those alleged in the other cause. The only difference is that after the trial court entered judgment in the companion suit this action was commenced on the theory that a partnership had existed between the parties, that the same was terminated, and that an accounting was necessary to establish the respective interests. Respondents, by answer, raised the question of res judicata. The trial court sustained the plea of respondents, dismissed the cause, and appellants appeal from the ruling and judgment of dismissal.

We are reversing the judgment of the court below in this matter as the plea of res judicata is not well taken and the court erred in so holding. In the cases of State Bank of Sevier v. American Cement & Plaster Co., 80 Utah 250, 10 P. 2d 1065; Vance v. Heath, 42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365; and Schramm-Johnson Drugs v. Kleeb, 51 Utah 159, 169 P. 161, this court held that a judgment is not final pending appeal and hence not admissible as a bar to another action. Mr. Justice Folland, speaking for the court in the case of State Bank of Sevier v. American Cement and Plaster Co., supra, stated as follows:

“It is the rule in this state that an action is pending until final determination on appeal, or until the time to appeal is passed (Comp. *609 Laws Utah 1917, § 7220), and a judgment is not final before the expiration of the time of appeal, and hence is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing title to property in controversy or as a bar to another action between the same parties, Vance v. Heath, 42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365; 2 Freeman on Judgments, 1528; 2 Cal. Jur. 412; * * *.” [80 Utah 250, 10 P. 2d 1069]

The rule is particularly applicable in this instance as we have reversed the trial court in what we shall designate as the first cause. If the rule were otherwise, the plaintiff who succeeded in the first suit would be denied the fruits of that victory .by a holding in a second suit that he had been afforded his day in court and lost.

The judgment is reversed. Costs to appellant.

PRATT, C. J., and WADE and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.

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

LATIMER, Justice.

This is a companion case to Young v. Hansen, 117 Utah 691, 218 P. 2d 666, this day decided. The facts alleged in the case are substantially the same as those alleged in the other cause. The only difference is that after the trial court entered judgment in the companion suit this action was commenced on the theory that a partnership had existed between the parties, that the same was terminated, and that an accounting was necessary to establish the respective interests. Respondents, by answer, raised the question of res judicata. The trial court sustained the plea of respondents, dismissed the cause, and appellants appeal from the ruling and judgment of dismissal.

We are reversing the judgment of the court below in this matter as the plea of res judicata is not well taken and the court erred in so holding. In the cases of State Bank of Sevier v. American Cement & Plaster Co., 80 Utah 250, 10 P. 2d 1065; Vance v. Heath, 42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365; and Schramm-Johnson Drugs v. Kleeb, 51 Utah 159, 169 P. 161, this court held that a judgment is not final pending appeal and hence not admissible as a bar to another action. Mr. Justice Folland, speaking for the court in the case of State Bank of Sevier v. American Cement and Plaster Co., supra, stated as follows:

“It is the rule in this state that an action is pending until final determination on appeal, or until the time to appeal is passed (Comp. *609 Laws Utah 1917, § 7220), and a judgment is not final before the expiration of the time of appeal, and hence is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing title to property in controversy or as a bar to another action between the same parties, Vance v. Heath, 42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365; 2 Freeman on Judgments, 1528; 2 Cal. Jur. 412; * * *.” [80 Utah 250, 10 P. 2d 1069]

The rule is particularly applicable in this instance as we have reversed the trial court in what we shall designate as the first cause. If the rule were otherwise, the plaintiff who succeeded in the first suit would be denied the fruits of that victory .by a holding in a second suit that he had been afforded his day in court and lost.

The judgment is reversed. Costs to appellant.

PRATT, C. J., and WADE and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 P.2d 674, 117 Utah 607, 1950 Utah LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-et-ux-v-hansen-et-ux-utah-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack