Commercial Block Realty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Merchants' Protective Ass'n, Intervener)
| Decision Date | 30 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4911 |
| Citation | 28 P.2d 1081,83 Utah 414 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL BLOCK REALTY CO. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. (MERCHANTS' PROTECTIVE ASS'N, Intervener) |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; James H. Wolfe, Judge.
Suit by the Commercial Block Realty Company against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in which the Merchants' Protective Association intervened. From the judgment dismissing the answer in intervention, intervener appears.
AFFIRMED.
N. W Sonnedecker, of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Fabian & Clendenin, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
The plaintiff in a summary proceeding under Comp. Laws Utah 1917 §§ 7313-7327, carried forward in the Revised Statutes of Utah 1933, as sections 104-60-1 to 104-60-14, for unlawful detainer sought to recover a judgment against the Merchants' Protective Association, a corporation, as defendant, for the sum of $ 511.54 rental, and the restitution of certain premises in Salt Lake City. The defendant in that case appealed and furnished an undertaking whereby it, as principal, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety, agreed to pay the amount of the judgment, costs, damages, and the value of the use and occupation of the premises involved pending the appeal, in the event the judgment was affirmed or the appeal dismissed. The judgment was affirmed by this court. See Commercial Block Realty Co. v. Merchants' Protective Association, 71 Utah 505, 267 P. 1009.
After the affirmance of the case, suit was brought by the plaintiff against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company to recover on the bond the amount of the judgment, with interest and costs together with the costs on appeal and accrued costs, and for the value of the use and occupation of the premises. The total sum claimed was $ 1,700. The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company answered and admitted the execution of the bond. In its answer it asked that the Merchants' Protective Association be made a party to the action. This request was denied by the Honorable Wm. M. McCrea, one of the judges of the district court of Salt Lake county, in November, 1928. Afterwards, on the 5th of January, 1929, the Honorable Chris Matheson, who was also one of the judges of the district court of Salt Lake county, made an order that the Merchants' Protective Association be permitted to intervene in the action. The order by Judge Matheson was made without setting side the order theretofore made by Judge McCrea. The record does not disclose on whose application or at whose request Judge Matheson permitted the intervention.
Following the order made by Judge Matheson, the protective association filed what it termed an "answer in intervention," in which was set forth a counterclaim against the plaintiff to the effect that the intervener is legally possessed of the premises in question; that in June, 1928, the plaintiff unlawfully entered into the possession of the same and ousted the Merchants' Protective Association therefrom, to its damage in the sum of $ 3,000; that the value of the rents, issues, and profits during the time that it had been excluded from the premises was $ 500 and it prayed damages against the plaintiff in the sum of $ 3,500.
When the case was called for trial, one F. G. Luke asked to have his appearance entered as counsel for the Merchants' Protective Association on the ground that he was one of the officers of said corporation. This request was by the court denied. It is conceded that Luke was not a member of the bar and had never been admitted to practice. The trial court also at the request of the plaintiff dismissed the answer in intervention of the Merchants' Protective Association on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of intervention. The court then proceeded with the trial and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in the amount of $ 1,050 and costs. The judgment was fully satisfied by the surety company.
The Merchants' Protective Association appeals. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds: First, that the protective association is not a party to the judgment entered and therefore is not entitled to appeal; second, that the judgment entered against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company was paid and discharged prior to the notice of appeal; and, third, that the order made by the trial judge dismissing the counterclaim of the intervener because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of intervention was not an appealable order.
If the appeal had been taken from the judgment rendered against the surety company and upon no other ground, the motion to dismiss the appeal would be granted. Comp. Laws Utah 1917 § 6993, now R. S. Utah 1933, 104-41-4, limits the right to appeal from a judgment or decree to a party to it. Not only must one be a party to a judgment before he can appeal, but the judgment must be adverse to his interests. In other words, he must be aggrieved or affected by the judgment. Although there are exceptional cases, the general rule is that a party may not appeal from a judgment which is in his favor. Thus a defendant cannot ordinarily appeal from a judgment or decree dismissing a complaint since he is not aggrieved or affected adversely by the judgment of dismissal, 3 C. J. 635. Since the appellant is not a party to the judgment against the surety company, it would have no right to appeal. By the same token, if the judgment were satisfied, there would be nothing from which the appellant could appeal, if the appeal were attempted to be taken from the judgment alone. However, the appeal is taken from the judgment dismissing the appellant's answer in intervention because it did not state facts sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lima v. Chambers
...State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Brown, 114 Ga.App. 650, 152 S.E.2d 641, 646 (1966); Commercial Block Realty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 83 Utah 414, 28 P.2d 1081 (1934). The court in State v. Craig, supra, held that an insurer providing uninsured motorist insuranc......
-
Klinge v. Southern Pac. Co
... ... Utah 290] the Supreme Court of the United States in the case ... of Chesapeake & O. R ... subject is in the case of Commercial Block Realty ... Co. v. United States F. & ... ...
-
Poage v. Co-Operative Publishing Co.
... ... error for the court to deny the Protective Committee, being ... the holders of $ 9,500 in ... et al., 109 F. 523; Guaranty ... Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove ... 1, 87 P. 616 ... See, also, Commercial Block Realty Co. v. United States ... Fidelity & ... ...
-
F.L. v. Court of Appeals
...P.3d 949 (citing Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc. , 2007 UT 17, ¶ 17, 156 P.3d 782 ; Com. Block Realty Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 83 Utah 414, 28 P.2d 1081, 1082 (1934) ). F.L. then argues that, because Lopez (and the cases on which it relied) recognize a right to an imme......