Case Name: MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John V. BENSON and Emily Sue Benson, Defendants and Respondents; MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George P. RUFF, Third-Party Defendant and Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1977-04-12
Citations: 563 P.2d 185
Docket Number: No. 14684
Parties: MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John V. BENSON and Emily Sue Benson, Defendants and Respondents. MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George P. RUFF, Third-Party Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 563
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John V. BENSON and Emily Sue Benson, Defendants and Respondents. MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George P. RUFF, Third-Party Defendant and Respondent.
No. 14684.
Supreme Court of Utah.
April 12, 1977.
Ricardo B. Ferrari and John A. Snow, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Carman E. Kipp of Kipp & Christian, Salt Lake City, for Benson.
Donn E. Cassity of Romney, Nelson & Cassity, Salt Lake City, for Ruff.

Opinion:
MAUGHAN, Justice:
Before us is an order of the court below dismissing, with prejudice, counts two and three of plaintiff's third-party complaint against George P. Ruff. We affirm that order, and award costs to Ruff.
This case was some sixteen months in preparation. All parties appeared at the appointed time for trial. A jury was impaneled, and opening statements were made. At this juncture a noon recess was called. During this recess plaintiff settled its claim against the Bensons — the Bensons agreed to transfer certain realty to plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff moved counts two and three of its third-party complaint, against Ruff, be dismissed without prejudice; for the reason plaintiff would not know "until we have liquidated the Benson property whether, and to what extent, Murray has been injured . by Mr. Ruff."
Counsel for Ruff objected, and moved the court to dismiss counts two and three with prejudice. He stated he had been some sixteen months in preparation, and his client was there ready to proceed. The court inquired of counsel for plaintiff, if he were ready to proceed, he said "no," giving the reason quoted above. Thereupon the court took the action we have affirmed.
Rule 41(a)(2), U.R.C.P., invests the court with a reasonable discretion in the matter of dismissals. The record does not disclose this discretion to have been abused. (Shaffer v. Evans, 10 Cir., 263 F.2d 134.)
ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.