Court Opinion

ID: 9845926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:21.479284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:27.179715
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I must dissent. The main opinion says this case is “distinguishable from the case of Wilcox v. District Court, 2 Utah 2d, 227, 272 P.2d 157 (1954), wherein the attempt was to have the Utah Court assert jurisdiction over a California appointed executrix who was in California, so the person and the assets were in California.” That case says no such thing. All it said was that a California appointed representative of a deceased person officially can exercise his authority no further East than the California checking stations. I think the cases are indistinguishable on principles of conflicts of law. In this case it is not so much one of jurisdiction over a “res” but one of jurisdiction over an out of state official, who incidentally is holding a res.