Parker v. Bamberger
Utah Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoffat, Chief Justice
While I concur in the results reached by the prevailing opinion on the merits of this case, I nevertheless feel that our decision heretofore rendered in this case (reported in, Utah, 101 P. 2d 372) should be affirmed with respsect to the time within which a proposed bill of exceptions, with or without amendments, should be presented to the trial court for settlement.
I cannot agree that the word “thereafter” contained in the statute ( § 104-39-4, R. S. U. 1933) can refer to no point of time where no amendments are proposed by the adverse party, or if proposed are allowed. Certainly there is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Houghton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Love v. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1917
- Parker v. BambergerUtah Supreme Court · 1940