Legal Opinion

Cram v. Reynolds

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1919No. 3368PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; W. H. Bramel, Judge. ’ Action by Sidney A. Cram and Lutie M. Cram against C. D. Reynolds and Annie E. Reynolds. From decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtWeber, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants for the purpose of reforming a certain written contract so as to include within the reformed contract eleven shares in the Ca-hoon & Maxfield Irrigation Company and for specific performance of the contract when thus reformed. Plaintiffs allege in their complaint the making of the contract and that it was understood and agreed by the parties thereto that defendants should transfer and deliver to plaintiffs as part.of the consideration eleven shares of the capital stock of the Cahoon & Maxfield Irrigation Company, but that through the mutual…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. ThompsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Weight v. BaileyUtah Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Ewing v. KeithUtah Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Deseret National Bank v. DinwoodeyUtah Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Wherritt v. DennisUtah Supreme Court · 1916

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Forrester v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Sine v. HarperUtah Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Naisbitt v. HodgesUtah Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Singleton v. KellyUtah Supreme Court · 1922
  5. George v. Fritsch Loan & Trust Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1927

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API