Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah, Volume 9 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 85
Page 7
... authorities support the position that by going to trial before the court without a jury , and without making any objec- tion , the appellant waives his right to a trial by jury . The appellant contends that the trial court erred in ...
... authorities support the position that by going to trial before the court without a jury , and without making any objec- tion , the appellant waives his right to a trial by jury . The appellant contends that the trial court erred in ...
Page 16
... authority , and issued this warrant . Should he be held liable for a mistake in judgment ? I think the justice had jurisdiction to hear the complaint , and issue the warrant . The offense charged was clearly within his jurisdiction as a ...
... authority , and issued this warrant . Should he be held liable for a mistake in judgment ? I think the justice had jurisdiction to hear the complaint , and issue the warrant . The offense charged was clearly within his jurisdiction as a ...
Page 17
... authority . When the justice has observed the preliminaries necessary to obtain jurisdic- tion , and has the right to adjudicate upon the question as to the propriety of issuing the warrant , no mere error of opinion or judgment will ...
... authority . When the justice has observed the preliminaries necessary to obtain jurisdic- tion , and has the right to adjudicate upon the question as to the propriety of issuing the warrant , no mere error of opinion or judgment will ...
Page 18
... authorities , but I think , from weight of authorities bearing upon this subject , that the warrant of arrest was regular and legal on its face , that the justice had juris- diction to issue it , and that he is not liable in this action ...
... authorities , but I think , from weight of authorities bearing upon this subject , that the warrant of arrest was regular and legal on its face , that the justice had juris- diction to issue it , and that he is not liable in this action ...
Page 19
... authority , although there are dicta the other way . Webber v . Gray , 24 Wend . 485 ; Watson v . Watson , 9 Conn . 140 ; Earl v . Camp , 16 Wend . 562 ; Stewart v . Hawley , 21 Wend . 552 ; Cooley , Torts , 459 , 460 ; Savacool v ...
... authority , although there are dicta the other way . Webber v . Gray , 24 Wend . 485 ; Watson v . Watson , 9 Conn . 140 ; Earl v . Camp , 16 Wend . 562 ; Stewart v . Hawley , 21 Wend . 552 ; Cooley , Torts , 459 , 460 ; Savacool v ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action affidavit affirmed agreement alleged amount appeal assignment attorney authority BARTCH caboose capital stock cars cause charge claim Comp complaint concurred contempt contract contributory negligence corporation counsel creditors damages decree deed defendant defendant's demurrer district court easements entitled error escheat evidence execution facts filed follows fraud Gardo House held injury judge judgment jury justice land liable lien ment Messrs MINER mortgage motion N. W. Rep negligence objection offense Ogden opinion order refusing owner paid party payment person plaintiff possession probate court promissory note question Railroad Railroad Co Railway Railway Co record recover Reed and Cropper respondent Rice and Gelder rule Salt Lake City SMITH statement statute street suit supreme court Territory Territory of Utah testimony thereof third district tickets tion track train trial trial by jury Utah Utah Territory verdict witness writ ZANE
Popular passages
Page 67 - The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate ; but in civil actions three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.
Page 4 - ... 2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition." See. 171. The counterclaim mentioned in the last section must be one existing in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff, between whom a several judgment might be had in the action, and arising out of one of the following causes of action: "1.
Page 233 - Although the defendant's negligence may have been the primary cause of the injury complained of, yet an action for such injury cannot be maintained if the proximate and immediate cause of the injury can be traced to the want of ordinary care and caution in the person injured, subject to this qualification, which has grown up in recent years (having been first enunciated in Davies v.
Page 86 - In case of any other transfer of interest, the action may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.
Page 205 - No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of the judges, or any of them, is such malconduct as avoids an election, unless the irregularity or improper conduct is such as to procure the person whose right to the office is contested to be declared elected when he had not received the highest number of legal votes.
Page 349 - I believe quite correctly, that "the rule of law is laid down with perfect correctness in the case of Butterfield v. Forrester, that, although there may have been negligence on the part of the plaintiff, yet unless he might, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence, he is entitled to recover; if by ordinary care he might have avoided them, he is the author of his own wrong.
Page 361 - That whenever by priority of possession rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same, and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed...
Page 232 - ordinary care," 'reasonable prudence,' and such like terms, as applied to the conduct and affairs of men, have a relative significance, and cannot be arbitrarily defined. What may be deemed ordinary care in one case may, under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence. The policy of the law has relegated the determination of such questions to the jury, under proper instructions from the court. It is their province to note the...
Page 251 - When a given state of facts is such that reasonable men may fairly differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the matter is for the jury.
Page 4 - Whenever the defendant seeks affirmative relief against any party, relating to or depending upon the contract, transaction, matter, happening or accident upon which the action is brought, or affecting the property to which the action relates...