Smith v. Columbus Buggy Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. Goa. G. Armstrong, Judge. Action by M. E. Smith ag’ainst the Columbus Buggy Company, the Consolidated Wagon & Machine Company, and another. Judgment for plaintiff against the Consolidated Wagon & Machine Company, and it appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtFrick, C. J.
In February, 1909, the respondent commenced this action against the defendants Columbus Buggy Company, a corporation of Columbus, Ohio, and Samuel Davidson for an informal rescission of a sale of an electric automobile, alleged to have been made by them to her. The action was grounded upon false representations and fraud. On April 1, 1909, after discovering that the Consolidated Wagon & Machine Company, a corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter styled appellant, made, or was interested in making, the *583said sale, respondent asked that it be made a party to the action, which was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kountze v. . KennedyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- McClellan v. ScottWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Farnsworth v. Union Pac. Coal Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1907
- Ryan v. Curlew Irrigation & Reservoir Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1909
- Pulos v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Anderson v. NixonUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Winegar v. Slim Olson, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1953
- Ogden Valley Trout & Resort Co. v. LewisUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- Shields v. Utah Light & Traction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1940
- Taylor v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 1964
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.