Bailey v. Jones
| Decision Date | 23 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3780 |
| Citation | 60 Utah 311,208 P. 525 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | BAILEY v. JONES ET AL. |
Appeal from District Court, San Juan County; George Christensen Judge.
Action by J. M. Bailey against F. P. Jones and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant F. I. Jones appeals. Appeal dismissed.
F. B Hammond, of Monticello, for appellant.
O. W McConkie, of Monticello, and Patterson & Constantine, of Moab, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court of San Juan county against the defendants to recover the amount due and owing on a certain promissory note alleged to have been given to him August 28, 1919, by the defendants F. P. Jones, J. H. Jones, Alice Jones, and Nora Jones as makers and F. I. Jones as a guarantor of the payment thereof. The complaint is in the usual form in such actions.
None of the defendants appeared in said action except F. I. Jones, who filed an answer denying generally all the allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense thereto in substance pleaded that he indorsed said note without consideration as an accommodation to the plaintiff for the purpose of enabling him to better handle said note as collateral and by reason of a promise made by the plaintiff that he would not be required to pay the same.
Plaintiff interposed a general demurrer to said answer, which was sustained by the district court.
After the defendant F. I. Jones had failed to further plead the court received evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint and rendered judgment according to the prayer thereof for the amount of the note, interest, and costs against each and all of the defendants,
The defendant F. I. Jones, alone appeals, after applying for and being denied a new trial. He assigns as error: First, the sustaining of the plaintiff’s demurrer; and, secondly, the denial of his motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff has interposed a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the appeal was not taken within the time required by law in order to confer jurisdiction upon this court; and, secondly, for failure to comply with our statutes and the rules of this court relating to appellate procedure.
The record shows that the case was tried to the court sitting without a jury. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed and the judgment was made and entered by the court on April 29, 1921. The appealing defendant filed his notice of appeal February 9, 1922, nearly 10 months after the entry of judgment.
Defendant’s motion for a new trial was filed April 26, 1921, three days prior to the filing of the court’s findings of fact,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petersen v. Ohio Copper Co.
...was premature and ineffectual as a notice to the losing party of the judgment thereafter filed. That case was followed by Bailey v. Jones, 60 Utah 311, 208 P. 525. Judgment was entered in that case April 29, 1921. On April 26, three days before the judgment was entered appellant filed his m......
-
Dixie Stockgrowers' Bank v. Washington County
...judgment for purposes of an appeal was not thereby suspended. Bailey v. Jones, 60 Utah 311, 208 P. 525. The instant case differs from Bailey v. Jones, supra, only in the that in this case the respondent has not moved for a dismissal of the appeal. This, however, cannot aid the appellants. T......