Case Title: Smith v. DeNiro

Citation: 28 Utah 2d 259, 501 P.2d 265

Docket Number: 

State: utah

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Date: 1972-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
501 P.2d 265 (1972) 28 Utah 2d 259 David W. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joseph DeNIRO et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. 12752. Supreme Court of Utah. September 19, 1972. *266 Harry D. Pugsley, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant. Richard C. Howe, Murray, for defendants-respondents. CALLISTER, Chief Justice: Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in a quiet title action, wherein the trial court amended the findings of fact and decree upon remand from this court in a prior appeal.[1] A review of the record reveals that plaintiff did not present to the trial court for its consideration the issues upon which he predicates error. Furthermore, in his proposed amendments to the findings and decree, plaintiff submitted the same provisions which he now challenges. Finally, in the first appeal before this court, wherein plaintiff was respondent, he did not cross-appeal, although the original decree contained one of the same provisions and had the same legal effect, which he currently claims is erroneous. In Simpson v. General Motors Corporation[2] this court stated: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to defendants. TUCKETT, HENRIOD and ELLETT, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, J., concurs in the result. [1] See Smith v. DeNiro, 26 Utah 2d 153, 486 P.2d 1036 (1971); 25 Utah 2d 295, 480 P.2d 480 (1971). [2] 24 Utah 2d 301, 303, 470 P.2d 399 (1970).