Victoria Copper Mining Co. v. Haws
| Decision Date | 12 September 1891 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | VICTORIA COPPER MINING COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM HAWS, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the third district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts, except the following: The complaint alleged two causes of action, one for relief at law, the possession of the premises, the second, for possession of the premises and a permanent injunction. Defendants denied the complaint and made cross-complaint, asking to have their title to the ground quieted. The judgment gave legal relief to plaintiff to-wit: the possession and damages for certain ore, and also equitable relief, to-wit: a permanent injunction.
Whether or not this was a suit at law or in equity the court does not seem to have considered. As to the rule in equity cases, the court had settled the rule in Machine Co. v. Mining Co., 6 Utah 351.
Affirmed.
Messrs Bennett, Marshall and Bradley, for the appellants.
Mr Charles C. Dey and Mr. E. D. R. Thompson, for the respondent.
The abstract in this case is very imperfect. The names of the parties defendant are not set out. It does not purport to be an abstract of all the evidence given at the trial. It assigns errors in the findings of fact by the trial court by numbers, without setting out the findings. It only gives the findings as a whole, without designating them by numbers. The purpose of an abstract of the record is to enable the court of appeals to decide the case without the labor of the examination of a voluminous record. This abstract only increases, instead of lessening, the labor of the court. This suit was brought to recover the possession of two mining claims, the Copper the Ace, and the Antietam, and for damages, and was tried by the court without a jury, a jury being waived. The court found for the plaintiff company, and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and defendants appealed both from the order overruling the motion for a new trial and the judgment, and assigned many reasons for reversing the judgment, to-wit, errors of law, in this: that improper irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent evidence was heard by the court, some of which was admitted subject to the objections, and to some the objections were overruled. When the judge tries a case without a jury, it is not a reversible error to admit incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial evidence; for he decides the case on the proper testimony only, and disregards entirely that which is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. When a clear preponderance of competent, relevant, and material evidence supports the findings, this court will not reverse because of errors of the court below in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial evidence, for the presumption in such case is that it was wholly disregarded. Insurance Co. v. Friedenthal, (Colo.) 1 Colo.App. 5, 27 P. 88. This disposes of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. Emery
...in equity cases was not necessarily reversible error in Salt Lake, etc., Co. v. Mam. Min. Co., 6 Utah 351, 23 P. 760; Vic. Min. Co. v. Haws, 7 Utah 515, 27 P. 695. even as to the admission of testimony, such rule is erroneous as heretofore pointed out, as the court then proceeds on the old ......
-
Schettler v. Lynch
... ... Whittaker v. Ferguson, 16 Utah 240; Mining Co ... v. Jennings, 14 Utah 221; North Point Irr. Co. v ... Canal , 16 Utah 246; Mining Co. v. Haws, 7 ... Utah 515; Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Co. v. Mamoth Min ... ...
-
English v. Openshaw
... ... erroneous admission of evidence. Salt Lake, etc., Co. v ... Mining Co., 6 Utah 351; Mining Co. v. Haws, 7 ... Utah 515; Schettler v. Lynch, ... ...
-
Peterson v. Armstrong
...v. Cook, 8 Utah 123; S. L. F. & M. Co. v. Mammoth, 6 Utah 351. And the same is true in a case at law, tried without a jury. Victoria M. Co. v. Haws, 7 Utah 515; 160 U.S. Abbot R. Heywood, Esq., and Hugh A. Tait, Esq., for respondent Harkness. Respondent Harkness insists that at least as to ......