Charlton v. Hackett
| Decision Date | 08 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 9243,9243 |
| Citation | 11 Utah 2d 389,360 P.2d 176 |
| Parties | d 389 George E. CHARLTON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George L. HACKETT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Edward M. Garrett, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Richard C. Dibblee, of Rawlings, Wallace, Roberts & Black, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Defendant George L. Hackett appeals from a judgment for $2,049.99 for breach of an agreement to deliver to Plaintiff George E. Charlton 68,333 shares of J-A Uranium Corporation stock.
Defendant admits that the agreement was entered into; that the plaintiff performed; and that the stock was never delivered. But he claims that the judgment against him was improper because: (a) the evidence shows that he was not acting for himself but as an agent for a disclosed principal, Ackerson-Hackett Investment Co., and (b) that the evidence does not support the amount of damages awarded.
In considering the attack on the findings and judgment of the trial court it is our duty to follow these cardinal rules of review: to indulge them a presumption of validity and correctness; to require the appellant to sustain the burden of showing error; to review the record in the light most favorable to them; and not to disturb them if they find substantial support in the evidence.
On 15 February, 1956, plaintiff, upon suggestion of a third party, went to the office of the defendant in the Continental Bank Building, Salt Lake City, where the latter operates an insurance and stock brokerage business. Plaintiff's purpose was to sell defendant a jeep and a house trailer. Mr. Hackett confirmed the fact that he was interested in acquiring such vehicles. The price the parties discussed was $550 for the jeep and $1,500 for the trailer. Hackett told the plaintiff about the J-A Uranium Company and its potential; and proposed that plaintiff accept 68,333 shares, at 3cents per share, aggregating $2,049.99, to which the plaintiff agreed. A memorandum was written up reciting that Charlton agreed to sell and convey his jeep and house traile for the stock referred to, the latter to be delivered after the public offering of the stock had been completed, in about 90 days. But it did not say who was to deliver the stock. It being left uncertain in that regard, it was necessary and proper for the court to consider extraneous evidence as to how the parties intended this to be done. 1
The facts which defendant points to as proving that he was acting as agent for a disclosed principal and consequently not personally liable on the contract, are these: that the name Ackerson-Hackett Investment Co. was on the office door; that the agreement was written on its letterhead; and that a requisition for the issuance of the uranium stock bore similar indicia. It is true that these are facts which the court could consider as bearing on the issue, but they are by no means conclusive. This is particularly so when it is remembered that one making an agreement who seeks to protect himself from personal liability on the ground that he is acting as the agent of another has the burden of showing that he brought such fact to the attention of the other contracting party in such a way that the latter knew, or reasonably should have known that fact, and agreed to it. 2 This Mr. Hackett did not do. In that regard it is significant to note that he drew the memorandum, but failed to so indicate therein.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piacitelli v. Southern Utah State College
...Co. v. Myton Water Ass'n, Utah, 563 P.2d 780 (1977); Child v. Hayward, 16 Utah 2d 351, 400 P.2d 758 (1965); Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176 (1961). After reviewing the affidavits and the other material in the record on appeal, we find substantial evidence to support the co......
-
State v. Nielsen
...of persuasion. ¶ 36 This version of the marshaling principle was announced in our cases as early as 1961. See Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176, 176 (1961). We followed this approach consistently for several decades thereafter. See, e.g., Nyman v. Cedar City, 12 Utah 2d 45, ......
-
Beck v. Cox
...test. Since the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial, competent evidence, they must be affirmed. Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176 (1961); DeVas v. Noble, 13 Utah 2d 133, 369 P.2d 290 Plaintiff, however, presses upon us the argument that under the law a r......
-
Cheney v. Rucker
...v. Greco, 45 Cal.2d 462, 289 P.2d 463 (1955).2 Davis v. City of Okmulgee, 174 Okl. 429, 50 P.2d 315 (1935).3 Charlton v. Hackett, 11 Utah 2d 389, 360 P.2d 176 (1961).4 10 Utah 2d 53, 348 P.2d 337 (1960).5 See 1 Am.Jur.2d pp. 344-46; also 15 C.J.S. Compromise and Settlement Sec. 46, p. 769.6......