Legal Opinion · Dissent

Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist Et Ux.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1938No. 6004Published

1DissentWolfe, Justice

As much as I would like to hold that an owner, whose property has been sold under mortgage foreclosure, has the right to occupy the premises during the period of redemption without liability for the value of the use and occupancy, because I think the law the other way I must dissent. I think the results have been attained by a judicial wishful thinking. The bare results of the court’s opinion may be correct for reasons not considered in that opinion but suggested at the end of this opinion, but the substantive propositions of law laid down appear to me to be wrong and unsupported and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. People v. DeysherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Page v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  3. Harris v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Walker v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Citizens' National Bank v. Western Loan & Building Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922

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

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

Powered by the Exa API