Hayden v. Collins

I dissent. I agree that the statement in the original opinion in 90 Utah 228, 87 P. (2d) 349, implying that the vendor retained a vendor’s lien was not correct. Any vendor’s lien upon the property was lost by delivering the possession of the property to the defendant. R. S. Utah 1983, 81-4-5. There being no express contract for a vendor’s lien, it is proper that the statement in the original opinion be corrected.

I still feel that the original ruling that the defendant could not, by amendment, set up a new and different cause of action in her counterclaim is a correct statement of the law in…