Smoot v. Checketts
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Second District; Hon. J. A. Howell, Judge. Action by William S. Smoot against Joseph Checketts- and another, doing business under the name of Checketts & Bradeson, and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
BRICK, -C. J.
The respondent, William S. Smoot, for himself and as-the-assignee of other lien claimants, commenced this action to foreclose certain mechanics’ liens. Bay'A. Boss filed a cross-complaint, but, for the purposes of this opinion, he will be treated the same as though he were an assignee of the ret-spondent Smoot. The district court found the issues in favor of the lien claimants and ordered that the premises against which the liens were claimed bei sold.
The controlling facts, stated as briefly as possible, are: That Checketts & Bradeson, as copartners, and hereafter *214called…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Farmers & Mechanics Life Ass'n v. CaineIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Kinney v. Duluth Ore Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Gordon v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Mills v. La Verne Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Ness v. Minnesota & Colorado Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cheney v. RuckerUtah Supreme Court · 1963
- Marton Remodeling v. JensenUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Smith v. GunnissMontana Supreme Court · 1943
- Palombi v. D & C BUILDERSUtah Supreme Court · 1969
- Southern Surety Co. of New York v. First State Bank of MarquezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.