Legal Opinion

Graham v. Street

Utah Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1946No. 6863PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOLFE, Justice.

Appeal from an interlocutory decree and the findings in support of it, holding that a partnership had been formed between plaintiff Graham and defendant Street on August 6, 1943 (in the decree August 6, 1945, but obviously a clerical error) and that Street and Siegel through connivance diverted from plaintiff the use of partnership property and partnership earnings, and ordering an accounting. We entertained the appeal under authority of Attorney General of Utah v. Pomeroy, 93 Utah 426, 73 P. 2d 1277, 114 A. L. R. 726. The original complaint was only against defendant Street.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Stanley v. StanleyUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Attorney General of Utah v. PomeroyUtah Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. CleggUtah Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Spears v. . WillisNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  5. Brady v. PowersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Graham v. StreetUtah Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Street v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, Utah Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Prentiss v. SheffelCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API