Great American Indemnity Co. v. BERRYESSA
Utah Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part · WolfeWolfe, Chief Justice
I concur in the majority opinion as to the counterclaim.
I dissent from the holding that there can be no recovery on the note. To hold in this case that the note was given for an illegal consideration and is therefore not enforceable is unjust and unreasonable. Frank Berryessa owed the sum of $6,865.28 to the Great American Indemnity Company as a subrogee of the Hotel Company, after the Indemnity Company paid the amount embezzled by Frank. Frank’s agreement to sign the note is not against public policy. It is merely recognition on his part that he owes *249a legal debt. The consideration for…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part · Henriod.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fox v. Piercey, Chief of the Fire DepartmentUtah Supreme Court · 1951
- Ellison v. PingreeUtah Supreme Court · 1924
- Payson Building & Loan Soc. v. TaylorUtah Supreme Court · 1935