Legal Opinion

Utah Assets Corp. v. Dooley Bros. Ass'n

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1937No. 5851PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LARSON, Justice.

The only question presented is as to whether the consideration paid by John Dooley for the real estate covered by the conveyances involved in this action was a fair consideration within the meaning of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act (Rev. St. 1933, 33-1-3). If the consideration paid was a fair consideration, the judgment must stand; if it was not, the judgment must be reversed or modified. The facts as found by the trial court, except as to the fairness of the consideration, are not assailed and stand, therefore, as undisputed and true.

Briefly, those facts are: The defendant…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. National Bank of Commerce v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  2. Stern v. PaperDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1910
  3. Myers v. FultzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  4. Smith v. Sinaloa Land & Fruit Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Dunlop v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Territorial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. BairdCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
  2. State v. GolieMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Bianco v. LayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  4. John Ownbey Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
  5. Meyer v. General American Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1977

7 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