Legal Opinion
Upton v. Heiselt Const. Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Decided July 13, 1949No. 7231PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
PRATT, Chief Justice.
This action was commenced by the respondent and cross-appellant, A. E. Upton. Its foundation is a promissory note secured by a mortgage on certain real property situated in Salt Lake City, Utah. The promissory note is dated May 15,1936, and is payable within one year. The note is signed as follows:
HEISELT CONSTRUCTION CO.
By L. H. Heiselt/s/
President
The instrument is indorsed on the back as follows:
“I, we or either of us, hereby guarantee the payment of the within note, waiving demand, presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest.
“L. H.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co., Philadelphia v. TaubelSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Everding & Farrell v. ToftOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Romero v. HopewellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Auchampaugh v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
- Finance Corp. v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- A. E. Upton v. Heiselt Construction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1955