Duerden v. Solomon
Utah Supreme Court
. Appeah from District Court, Second District; J. A. Howell, Judge. Action by Richard Duerden against James Solomon and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. APPELLANT^ POINTS. “To support a finding that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage only, tbe evidence must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory, and of such a character as will leave in mind of the chancellor no hesitation or substantial doubt.
Read the full summary
. Appeah from District Court, Second District; J. A. Howell, Judge. Action by Richard Duerden against James Solomon and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. APPELLANT^ POINTS. “To support a finding that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage only, tbe evidence must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory, and of such a character as will leave in mind of the chancellor no hesitation or substantial doubt. In reviewing questions of fact upon appeal, in this class of cases, the same strict rule must be applied by the appellate court.” (Jasper v. Hazen, 23 L. R.…
1Opinion of the CourtSteaup, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff against James Solomon and his wife and Nephi and William S. Duerden to have an instrument purporting on its face to be a deed declared a mortgage, and the title to the real estate described therein quieted in plaintiff upon payment of the mortgage indebtedness. The case was tried to the court, who found the facts substantially as follows: In 1891 the plaintiff, who then was the owner and in possession of the real estate, mortgaged it to one Charles Morrell to secure an indebtedness in the sum of $2,-000. At its maturity Morrell demanded payment, and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Corey v. RobertsUtah Supreme Court · 1933
- Bybee v. StuartUtah Supreme Court · 1948
- Thomas v. Ogden State BankUtah Supreme Court · 1932
- Brown v. SkeenUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Hess v. AngerUtah Supreme Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.