Crescent Mining Co. v. Wasatch Mining Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a decree of the district court of the third district, and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts, except the findings of the court, which found that it was the intention of both parties to include the omitted premises in the deed sought to be reformed, and that the said premises were omitted through mistake and inadvertence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the district court of the third district, and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts, except the findings of the court, which found that it was the intention of both parties to include the omitted premises in the deed sought to be reformed, and that the said premises were omitted through mistake and inadvertence. The complaint does not state a case for relief, because it shows that the Wasatch Mining Company was not required to make a deed until the purchase price was paid. If any other contract between the parties required the mating of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, J.:
Tbe complaint in this case is filed to obtain a reformation of a deed made September 1, 1886, by tbe defendant to the iilaintiff, so as to include 2.55 acres of ground not included therein. Tbe premises in dispute are located in tbe Uintah mining district, and are part of wliat is known as the “Walker and Walker Extension” and “Buckeye Mining Claims,” as located. Tbe material facts, as shown by tbe pleadings and testimony, are as follows: Tbe Walker and Walker extension and Buckeye mining claims were first located as contiguous and adjacent properties. Thereafter, what is known…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Welles v. . YatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Tyng v. . Commercial Warehouse Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lignell v. BergUtah Supreme Court · 1979
- Reese Howell Co. v. BrownUtah Supreme Court · 1916
- Wasatch Mining Co. v. Crescent Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1890