McLaren v. McLaren
Utah Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceWolfe, Justice
I concur. If the matter had gone against the assignee it may be that he might have shown that he was not personally served as required in a civil suit and therefore had not his day in court. He was served as an heir by a mailed probate notice, but he was not served as a party. He, however, prevails and does not object that he was not properly in court as assignee. The appellant appeared personally, therefore he cannot object that he did not have his day in court nor can he claim a new trial because his successful adversary was not properly served. The adversary adopts the judgment in his…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bartolozzi v. MallegniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Atwood v. Cox, District JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Clary v. ClaryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- In re Estate of ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- In Re Thompson's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1927
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.