McGgrath v. Tallent
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order overruling a motion for a new trial. The opinion states the facts, except that in his answer defendant denied that he was in possession of the premises, hut this seems to have been overlooked by the attorneys for the parties.
1Opinion of the Court
Zane, 0. J.:
This is an action of ejectment to recover the land described in the complaint, and damages^for its detention. The defendant filed an answer denying all the material allegations of the complaint. When the case was called for trial the defendant’s counsel entered a motion for a continuance, and stated that the defendant was so ill as to be confined to his bed; that his testimony was material to the issues involved; that the statement was made upon the representations of defendant’s physician, and that the attorney could not safely go to trial without the presence of defendant. The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Center Creek Water & Irrigation Co. v. ThomasUtah Supreme Court · 1899