¶1I concur in the affirmance of the judgment appealed from, but I am of the opinion that defendants’ exceptions to the charge should have been considered by this court, because counsel for both parties, with the consent of the court who tried the case, stipulated that they might be taken after the verdict.
13 Utah 150
Farr v. Swigart
Decided March 26, 1896
Utah Supreme Court · decided 1896-03-26
H. W. Smith, Judge. Action by Martha D. Farr against W. R. Swigart and the Consolidated Implement Company for a forcible and malicious trespass upon real estate, and for the conversion of personal property. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2008
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1896-03-26
View the full empirical analysis of this case →