Case Name: SIMON SMYTH, Respondent, v. A. F. LAWSON, and Another, Appellants
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1891-06
Citations: 7 Utah 410
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMON SMYTH, Respondent, v. A. F. LAWSON, and Another, Appellants.
Judges: AndeRSOn, J., and Minee, J., concurred.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 410–412

Head Matter:
SIMON SMYTH, Respondent, v. A. F. LAWSON, and Another, Appellants.
Appeal. — Findings.—Conclusiveness.—Where no question of law is raised by the record, and the findings support the decree and the evidence supports the findings, judgment will be affirmed as a matter of course.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the third district and from an order refusing a new trial.
The findings of the trial court were as follows: That on the second day of November, 1889, the plaintiff and J. L. .Lawson defendant, and Peter Brixen owned the premises described in plaintiff’s complaint, each an undivided one-third interest, and that on the same day the plaintiff employed defendants to act as his agents in the sale of his interest in. said property, and that defendants accepted said employment.
That while so acting as such agents, defendants falsely represented to plaintiff, on the 6th day of November, 1889, that they had sold said property for the sum of $15,400, or at the rate of $350 per front rod, to one J. J. Snyder; that defendants had not sold said property, or plaintiff’s interest therein to Snyder for any sum whatsoever, but did sell said property to one McIntyre for the sum of $19,800, or at the rate of $450 per front rod; that plaintiff paid to defendants on December 20, 1889, $75 towards part of the expenses of said sale; that there is now due from defendants to plaintiff on the transaction the sum of $1,541.66, less one-third the expense of making said sale to McIntyre, which was $349.24, leaving as a balance due plaintiff from defendants the sum of $1,192.42, with interest on said amount from December 7, 1889 — $50,65; total amount due from defendants to plaintiff, $1,243.07.
The defendants contended that the court failed to find specifically upon certain issues raised by their answer.
Messrs. Bennett, Marshall and Bradley, for the appellants.
Messrs. Hoge and Burmester, for the respondent.

Opinion:
BiackbuRN, J.:
This is a suit for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiff. Trial by court, jury waived. Bindings and judgment for the plaintiff. Motion for new trial. Motion overruled, and appeal from the order overruling' motion for new trial and judgment. There is no question of law that needs com-ment in this case. After careful examination, we think. the evidence clearly and fully supports the findings of the court, and justifies the judgment. A review of the evidence would be wholly without profit. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
AndeRSOn, J., and Minee, J., concurred.