Maxfield v. West
| Decision Date | 12 April 1890 |
| Citation | 6 Utah 379,24 P. 98 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN W. MAXFIELD, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH A. WEST, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS |
PETITION for a rehearing of this cause. The opinion in the cause is found at p. ante.
Rehearing denied.
Messrs Sutherland and Judd for the appellant.
The findings must precede the judgment and are the foundation for the judgment. Russell v. Armador, 2 Cal., 305; Vermule v. Shaw, 4 Cal., 214; Brown v. Brown, 3 Cal., 111; Lyons v. Lyons, 18 Cal. 448, holds that the same rule applies to equity causes. A judgment cannot stand unless there are full findings which respond to all the material issues. Dowd v. Clark, 51 Cal. 262; Vancourt v. Winterston, 61 Cal. 615. The court says in its former opinion that it makes no difference how erroneous the findings may be if the decree is right. This is in effect brushing away the statute. The cause has been decided upon a point not made or argued. And the facts show that the matter was a partnership matter and the statute of frauds could not apply.
Mr. A R. Heywood for the respondents.
We adhere to the opinion that the contract this action seeks to enforce is a parol contract for the purchase of land with a part payment of the purchase money, and is within the statute of frauds, and cannot be enforced in a court. But the contention of counsel is that the findings of fact by the court below are not supported by the evidence, and on that account the cause should be remanded, and a new trial be had, even if the decree is right and fully supported by the evidence. This contention cannot be maintained. This is a suit in equity, and, even if the findings of the court below have the force under our statute of the verdict of a jury, it does not follow that the decree should be set aside and a new trial ordered, where the decree is the one that ought to be made on the evidence. The fundamental principles and doctrines of courts of chancery are not abolished by the new procedure; their practice is only modified to a limited extent. 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., Sec. 84; Improvement Co. v Bradbury, 132 U.S. 509; 10 S.Ct. 177, 33 L.Ed. 433. In an equity cause, the findings of a jury are not binding on a chancellor. He may do any one of three things in reference thereto: He may set aside the verdict of the jury, and order a new trial; he may set the findings aside; or he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Armstrong
...but the findings are not, the decree will not be reversed if it is the one that should be made on the evidence as a whole. Maxfield v. West, 6 Utah 379; Fisk v. Patton, 7 399. Where an equity case is tried by the court and the record contains evidence justifying the decree, no errors in adm......
-
In re Love's Estate
...the evidence offered, and the only findings possible under the evidence would necessarily have been adverse to the appellant. Maxfield v. West, 6 Utah 379, 24 P. 98; Fisk v. Patton, 7 Utah 399, 27 P. 1; X. L. Stores Co. v. Moon, 49 Utah 262, 162 P. 622; Snyder v. Allen, 51 Utah 291, 169 P. ......
-
McKibbon v. Brigham
... ... therewith, even if the conclusions of law are incorrect in ... technical language. Maxfield v. West, 6 ... Utah 379, 24 P. 98; O'Reilly v ... Campbell, 116 U.S. 418, 29 L.Ed. 669, 6 S.Ct. 421 ... Upon ... the whole record we ... ...