Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hardy v. Hendrickson

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1972No. 12354Published

1Concurrence

HENRIOD, Justice.

I concur in the dissent of Mr. Chief Justice CALLISTER, and add the following:

In a concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion in Beehive v. Rosquist, 26 Utah 2d 62, 484 P.2d 1188, April 14, 1971, I commented that “The weakness in the rule is the first phrase, that ‘If the contract between the parties ostensibly creates a joint tenancy . . . there arises a presumption that such is the case unless . . . ’ It seems to me that ‘if and 'ostensibly’ beg the question. There having been concededly a joint account contract created in clear,’ unmistakable language, it would…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beehive State Bank v. RosquistUtah Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API