Skews v. Dunn
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts. The court erred in permitting Sarah Skews to be substituted as plaintiff in place of her husband, William Skews. The authority for substitution of parties is found in the second clause of section 16 of the practice act. The affidavit of William Skews, if true, shows that he was not the real party in interest at the time of the commencement of this action, and not entitled to bring the same: Prac.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts. The court erred in permitting Sarah Skews to be substituted as plaintiff in place of her husband, William Skews. The authority for substitution of parties is found in the second clause of section 16 of the practice act. The affidavit of William Skews, if true, shows that he was not the real party in interest at the time of the commencement of this action, and not entitled to bring the same: Prac. Act, sec. 4. The court can not permit a person to be substituted as plaintiff in place of the then plaintiff on the ground that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Twiss, J.:
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Salt Lake county..The complaint, among other things, alleges that the defendant made two promissory notes, each payable to Sarah Skews; that they had been indorsed to the plaintiff, William Skews; that neither of them had been paid, except the sum of twelve dollars and fifty cents upon each.
The answer set up several defenses, a specification of which is not necessary here. Upon trial the justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the balance due on the notes. The defendant appealed to the district court, where he was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dubbers v. GouxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Eaton v. AlgerNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Howard v. TaylorThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855
- Harris v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by6 opinions
- Reardon v. Balaklala Corsol. Copper Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1912
- Baglin v. Earl-Eagle Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1919
- Henderson v. WanamakerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Pugmire v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1903
- Franklin v. Conrad-Stanford Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.