Case Name: Sumner J. HATCH and Robert M. McRae, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SUGARHOUSE FINANCE COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1967-12-01
Citations: 20 Utah 2d 156
Docket Number: No. 10807
Parties: Sumner J. HATCH and Robert M. McRae, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SUGARHOUSE FINANCE COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, J., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 20
Pages: 156–158

Head Matter:
434 P.2d 758
Sumner J. HATCH and Robert M. McRae, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SUGARHOUSE FINANCE COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 10807.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Dec. 1, 1967.
Beaslin, Nygaard, Coke & Vincent,. Bruce E. Coke, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
L. E. Richardson, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Opinion:
TUCKETT, Justice:
The plaintiffs, attorneys at law practicing in Salt Lake City, filed their complaint in the court below seeking to recover for services rendered defendant together with expenses and out-of-pocket expenditures advanced by them in connection with the services.
The plaintiffs billed the defendant for out-of-pocket expenditures in the sum of $980.10, and $250 for appearances before the Grand Jury in Salt Lake County on behalf of officers and agents of the defendant. The plaintiffs also billed the defendant for 244 hours of services at the rate of $25 per hour, making a total of $6100. In addition thereto the billing also included a $2000 item for various and sundry conferences with officers of the de fendant and others and services performed on weekends and after hours for which no time record was kept.
The plaintiffs moved the court for a summary judgment based upon requests for admissions and affidavits reciting the above facts. The defendant by its answer and by affidavits filed in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment, does not claim that services were not in fact rendered, it does claim that the plaintiffs charged for services which were unnecessary and that the amount charged by the plaintiffs was unreasonable, and not based upon an understanding between the parties. It is fair to say that the defendant by its pleadings attempted to put the plaintiffs to their proof both as to the quantity of the services rendered and the reasonable value thereof.
The court, after a hearing upon the motion of the plaintiffs for a summary judgment at which time no evidence was introduced, took the matter under advisement and thereafter granted the plaintiffs' motion. It is evident that the court after considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits supporting the parties' contentions determined that there was no genuine issue of fact which would necessitate a trial.
We are of the opinion that there was an issue of fact raised by the pleadings and the counteraffidavit of the defendant in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a summary judgment and that the defendant is entitled to have its day in court in respect to the quantity and the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiffs. Rule 56, U.R.C.P., should not be used where there are issues of fact in dispute.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the matter is remanded for a trial upon the merits. Costs to the defendant.
CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, J., concur.
. Dupler v. Yates, 10 Utah 2d 251, 269, 351 P.2d 624; James v. Homaker Drilling, Inc., 10 Cir., 254 F.2d 702, 706.