Dudley v. Facer
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a part of a judgment refusing costs in the district court of the first district. The opinion states the facts except that § 9 of the organic act, 1 Comp. Laws of 1888, p. 44, provides the jurisdiction of district courts shall be as limited by law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a part of a judgment refusing costs in the district court of the first district. The opinion states the facts except that § 9 of the organic act, 1 Comp. Laws of 1888, p. 44, provides the jurisdiction of district courts shall be as limited by law. But § 3 of the Poland bill, approved June 23, 1874, provides: “The district courts shall have original exclusive jurisdiction in all suits or proceedings in chancery, and in all actions at law in which the sum or value of the thing in controversy shall be three hundred dollars and upwards.” The reference to the organic act in the…
1Opinion of the Court
BlaoKbuen, J.:
This suit is brought to quiet the title to a tract of land, *404and defendants Facer and Woodland claim it, and in the pleadings and evidence their claims are set out. The court heard the case, and decided that the defendants Facer and Woodland owned the land in controversy, and dismissed the complaint, but did not give the defendants costs, and, from the order disallowing costs this appeal is taken. The appellents insist that this is a suit in which the title to land is involved, and that in such case the statute of the Territory determines the question of costs, and no discretion…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ely v. New Mexico & Arizona RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Hepworth v. GardnerUtah Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Freed Furniture & Carpet Co. v. SorensenUtah Supreme Court · 1905