Legal Opinion

Gregg v. Groesbeck

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1895No. 536PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. Hon. Samuel A. Merritt, Judge. Action by F. E. Gregg, doing business as F. E. Gregg & Co., against Hyrum Groesbeck, Nicholas Groesbeck, Henry M. Eyan, Alexander Wood, and P. H. Easehe, defendants, of whom Henry M. Eyan is appellant. The separate answer of Henry M. Eyan was stricken out as sham and frivolous and judgment entered on the pleadings, from which he; appeals.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. Hon. Samuel A. Merritt, Judge. Action by F. E. Gregg, doing business as F. E. Gregg & Co., against Hyrum Groesbeck, Nicholas Groesbeck, Henry M. Eyan, Alexander Wood, and P. H. Easehe, defendants, of whom Henry M. Eyan is appellant. The separate answer of Henry M. Eyan was stricken out as sham and frivolous and judgment entered on the pleadings, from which he; appeals. Hnder our practice there is no authority for a court to-render judgment summarily against a defendant on the pleadings. 2 Comp. Laws, § 3239, provides, “sham and…

1Opinion of the Court

KiNG, J.:

Hyrum Groesbeok and Nicholas H. Groesbeck executed, their promissory note in favor of Henry M. Eyan and Alexander Wood. Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that he purchased said note, after its indorsement by the payees and P. H. Easche, for a valuable consideration, and before-maturity, and that said indorsement was a part of the consideration inducing the purchase. Defendant Eyan filed a separate answer, the other defendants having defaulted, in which he averred that .tbe defendant Easche sold and transferred said note to plaintiff, but prior thereto the defendant Eyan specially…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Martin v. ColeSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. Wetherbee v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Abbott v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Putnam v. LamphierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gramkow v. Farmers Cooperative Irrigation Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1929
  2. State Bank v. Burton-Gardner Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Consolidated Steelcraft v. KnowltonUtah Supreme Court · 1948
  4. State v. LaundyOregon Supreme Court · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API