Knauss v. Cahoon
Utah Supreme Court
Cross-Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district. The findings of the court on which the plaintiffs asked to have the decree reversed on the measure of damages were as follows: “That said land at the time of the filing of the original complaint in this cause, to wit: February 23, 1889, was worth the sum of 824,000, and at the time of the trial of this cause was worth the sum of $48,000.” The remaining facts are found in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Cross-Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district. The findings of the court on which the plaintiffs asked to have the decree reversed on the measure of damages were as follows: “That said land at the time of the filing of the original complaint in this cause, to wit: February 23, 1889, was worth the sum of 824,000, and at the time of the trial of this cause was worth the sum of $48,000.” The remaining facts are found in the opinion. The court adopted the wrong rule as to the measure of" recovery. The rule as to trustees is plain. The recovery-should have been one-third…
1Opinion of the Court
BlaokbueN, J.:
In this cause both parties appeal. The plaintiffs appeal from the amount of recovery. It is to be decided only on the pleadings, findings of facts, conclusions of law, and judgment, as the evidence taken at the trial is not in the record. We do not think a lengthy opinion on the plaintiffs’ appeal is necessary. It is sufficient to say that it is not well taken. One of the findings of fact is that Edwards, one of the plaintiffs, Oahoon and Kobinson, two of the defendants, entered into an agreement to pur*184chase certain lands of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, to share equally…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Henneberger v. DuncanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Coffin v. McIntoshUtah Supreme Court · 1893