Brereton v. Miller
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district. The opinion states the facts except the following: “ The organic act approved September 9, 1850, provided, at section 9, that the jurisdiction of the several courts shall be as limited by law, provided that the district and supreme courts, have chancery and common-law jurisdiction.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district. The opinion states the facts except the following: “ The organic act approved September 9, 1850, provided, at section 9, that the jurisdiction of the several courts shall be as limited by law, provided that the district and supreme courts, have chancery and common-law jurisdiction.” This section is partly incorporated into the Revised Statutes, as section 1866. Then, in section 1868, Revised Statutes, is found the following: “The Supreme Court and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law…
1Opinion of the Court
Miner, J.:
It is alleged in the complaint in this cause that on the 21st day of June, 1888, the appellant, Charles H. Miller, made and delivered to the plaintiff his promissory note for the sum of $200 and interest, which note he secured by mortgage on real estate, and that the same was due and unpaid on the 26th day of June, 1890, at which time this action was brought to foreclose the mortgage; that on December 31, 1889, the defendant, John M. Drake, purchased the mortgaged premises from Miller, paying him the purchase price in full, and receiving from Miller and wife a full covenant warranty…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- National Bank v. County of YanktonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Hornbuckle v. ToombsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Englund v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and DuerSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Enright v. GrantUtah Supreme Court · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- First National Bank of Salt Lake City v. HaymondUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Russell v. HankUtah Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. McEvoyUtah Supreme Court · 1892