Court Opinion

ID: 9534471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:40:09.178695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:51.314142
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent, adhering to my concurrence with the views expressed by Chief Justice Henriod’s dissent in Tangren v. Ingalls1 and Braegger v. Loveland.2 Aside from its correct application of contract law and principles of equity, the case of Holt v. Bayles 3a (overruled by Tangren) enunciated a rule which produced consistency and promoted predictability.4a

. 12 Utah 2d 388, 367 P.2d 179 (1961).

. 12 Utah 2d 384, 367 P.2d 177 (1961).

. 85 Utah 364, 39 P.2d 715 (1934).

. 8 Utah L.R. 66. The Tangren rule has had just the opposite effect. See Braegger v. Loveland, supra; Haywood v. Gill, 16 Utah 2d 299, 400 P.2d 16 (1965); and the instant case. It is interesting to note that the Holt rule of conclusive presumption has been codified as to savings and loan institutions. 7-13-39, U.C.A.1953 (Supp.1961).