Bank of Ephraim v. Davis
Utah Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceCrockett, Justice
It is in conformity with my sense of justice that under the circumstances in this case the attachment was improperly issued and I therefore concur in that ruling. However, I desire to state my own basis for that conclusion.
The plaintiff Bank’s action to foreclose on the defendant’s property is grounded upon the note and mortgage executed by the defendant and upon which the defendant was liable personally; and this would be so quite irrespective of whether security had been given or not.
It is my view that the entire loan and mortgage transaction should properly be regarded as imposing rights…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Jensen v. LichtensteinUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- First National Bank of Coalville v. BoleyUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Bowers v. London Bank of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.