Ferguson v. Burt
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe Third Judicial District Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. This case is fully within the code, even if it is held that there are two or more contracts in this matter, for all the alleged causes of action that arise out of the contract are between the same parties, are triable in the same place, and they were separately stated in the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Third Judicial District Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. This case is fully within the code, even if it is held that there are two or more contracts in this matter, for all the alleged causes of action that arise out of the contract are between the same parties, are triable in the same place, and they were separately stated in the complaint. C. L. Utah, §§ 64, 416; Potter v. Hussey, 1 Utah, 249; Grey et al. v. Dougherty et al., 25 Cal. 266; 'Whiting v. Reslop et al., 4 Cal. 327; Houtz v. Gesbon, 1 Utah, 173; Getty v. Hudson It. It. Go., 6 How. Pr. 269;…
1Opinion of the Court
Schaeffer, 0. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Two causes of action are separately stated in this complaint. In the first a written undertaking or contract in the words following is set out, to-wit:
Salt Lake City, July 18, 1868.
In consideration of a divorce between Andrew Burt and Mary Booth, A. Burt, on his part, promises to fulfill the following agreement: To build Mary Booth a house of one room this fall, or as soon as possible; in the meantime to rent her a house until said house is built, at a reasonable rent; also to let her have three rods of ground on the northwest corner of his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tyler v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Houtz v. GisbornUtah Supreme Court · 1874
- Folsom v. McLaughlinUtah Supreme Court · 1874
- Whiting v. HeslepCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Potter v. HusseyUtah Supreme Court · 1875