Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Utah 306

Smith v. Cummings

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1911

Utah Supreme Court · decided 1911-06-15

<p>1. Animats — Ownership op Stock — Evidence. A steep tirand recorded under Comp. Laws 1907, section 39, is not prima facie evidence of ownership in the person procuring the record, on an issue of ownership. (Page 308.)</p> <p>2. Trial — Invading Province op Jury — Weight op Evidence. While the legislature may, within certain limits, declare what prima facie shall be sufficient to establish a given fact, the courts, in the absence of statute, cannot, as a matter of law, declare what effect shall be given any particular act or circumstance where the evidence is conflicting. (Page 312.)</p> <p>3. Trial — Instructions—Weight oe Evidence. The court, in submitting a case in which the effect of marks or brands of animals is involved, should not single out any particular mark or brand and tell the jury what its effect as evidence is, but should submit to them all the marks and brands, whether recorded or not, to be considered in connection with all the other evidence of ownership and of identification, to be given such weight as in their judgment they deem them entitled to. (Page 314.)</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1946

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

REVERSED AND REMANDED · Decided 1911-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STRAUP, J.

¶1(concurring.)

¶2I concur in the result reversing the judgment. However, I am of the opinion tbat the appellants ought not to have costs. Under the statute (Comp. Laws 1907, section 3344) “costs on appeal are in the discretion of the court (1) when a new trial is ordered,” or (2) “when a judgment is'modified.” At the outset all tbat was involved in this case was the value and right of possession of four common sheep alleged in the complaint to be of the value of six dollars each, and in the answer $3.50 each. the jury, by their verdict, awarded three sheep to the plaintiffs and one to the defendants. the defendants, not to vindicate or have settled any legal principle involved in the case, but to defend a mere pecuniary interest alleged by them to be worth only $10.50, prosecuted this appeal on a transcript consisting of 325 pages, a printed abstract of sixty-four pages and a printed brief of sixteen pages, a cost, including fees, of something like $150. Though the defendants bad the right to prosecute the appeal without any reference to the amount claimed or involved, yet when the amount involved is so greatly disproportionate to the costs, and when compared with them is almost insignificant, it would seem tbat something else besides defending or protecting a mere monetary interest prompted the appeal. the awarding of costs being here discretionary, I think neither party should be given costs.

/39/utah/306 · .json · Public domain