Court Opinion

ID: 9538233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:32:55.856164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:41.338317
License: Public Domain

JEPPSON, District Judge
(concurring).
To enable a person to get specific performance, it has been said that the service must be highly peculiar and personal. The cases cited by counsel deal with personal care involving companionship, love and affection-.
*26In this case there was not the usual amount of care of the person of the decedent by the plaintiff personally, as appears in Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480, 55 P. 218, but the plaintiff gave personal care to the business of the deceased which involved more than mere business management and gave some personal care to the decedent. Her business was such, including the representation of the majority of the stock in the bank on the Board of Directors, that the proper care of such a business would involve peculiar and personal attention.
The trial court excluded evidence of. advantages to the plaintiff in coming to Provo to live without getting the bank stock upon the death of the decedent, that the defendant claimed would show sufficient inducement for the plaintiff to move to Provo without relying on a promise of receiving the bank stock.
I am of the opinion that reliance is material and that it was error to exclude the evidence, but I cannot see that the admission of the evidence would have produced a different result. The oral agreement for the plaintiff to move to Provo could have several promises, each of which may have appeared to be sufficient to- improve the plaintiff’s conditions, and thus induce some person similarly situated to make the move. Such fact does not prevent a promisee, such as the plaintiff, from relying on several alluring considerations.
Changing- one’s residence may involve social and other disadvantages that would' require several economic advantages to persuade the promisee to malee the move.
The evidence is, in my opinion, admissible itself but it is not sufficient to change the result and justify a new trial. I concur in the result of the majority opinion.