HARPER v. TRI-STATE MOTORS, INC., ET AL

7 Citing cases

  1. Steenblik v. Lichfield

    906 P.2d 872 (Utah 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that officers and directors are liable for corporate debts incurred after suspension of corporation and noting that this is the majority rule

    Lichfield also argues that Utah law requires more than nominal participation to establish liability under the Act. He relies on Willis v. Spring Canyon Copper Co., 4 Utah 2d 211, 291 P.2d 878 (1956), and Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc., 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18 (1936), for support. Those cases construed the forerunner of the Utah Uniform Securities Act, which expressly limited liability to defendants who "participated" or "aided" in some way.

  2. Willis v. Spring Canyon Copper Co.

    291 P.2d 878 (Utah 1956)   Cited 1 times

    We can find nothing else in the record that reasonably points to Hall's participation in this sale other than by way of approving the resolution mentioned. Harper v. Tri-State Motors, 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18. The judgment against the corporation is affirmed, but the lower court is ordered to enter a judgment of no cause of action against Hall.

  3. Waverly Oil Works Co. v. R.B. Epperson, Inc.

    144 P.2d 286 (Utah 1943)

    CONTRACTS. Where contract provided that oil company was to furnish dealer advertising at specified charges and dealer was to be allowed a credit against advertising charges of one cent per gallon on all oil purchased by dealer, and dealer ordered and received more advertising than gallonage credits would liquidate, a promise by dealer to pay the balance was implied in absence of a clear expression of intent that balance was to be liquidated only by resort to gallonage credits. Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc., 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18; Greco v. Gentile, 88 Utah 255, 53 P.2d 1155. See 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error, sec. 1657. 3 Am. Jur. 468.

  4. SEELEY v. HOUSTON ET AL

    141 P.2d 880 (Utah 1943)   Cited 1 times

    Utah Code 1943, 104-60-2. Jensen v. Howell, 75 Utah 64, 282 P.2d 1034; Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc., 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18.Paxton v. Fisher, 86 Utah 408, 45 P.2d 903; Woodbury v. Bunker, 98 Utah 216, 98 P.2d 948.

  5. HARPER v. TRI-STATE MOTORS, INC., ET AL

    63 P.2d 1056 (Utah 1937)

    Order contained in prior opinion amended, and petition for rehearing denied. For prior opinion, see 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18. A.J. Mays and Thomas Dahlquist, all of Salt Lake City, and Leslie Frazer, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

  6. Guynn v. Shulters

    223 Miss. 232 (Miss. 1955)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that to establish fraud and fraudulent statements to set aside a purchase of stock, "[i]t must be shown that the statement was not uttered as an opinion . . ."

    The Trial Court committed manifest error in its separate findings of the facts and conclusions of law, said finding of facts being unsupported by the record and the conclusions of law being unsupported by the law applicable to the facts in the case. Bouland v. State, 68 S.D. 111, 167 S.W.2d 972; Bourke v. Fisk, 206 P.2d 407; Brown Memorial Foundation v. Rother, 152 Kan. 291, 103 P.2d 814; Burgess v. Nixon, 75 Kan. 201, 88 P. 1076; Clelland v. Smart, 321 Mich. 46, 32 N.W.2d 42; Durham v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 47 Ariz. 280, 55 P.2d 648; Erstod v. Hobart Howry Co., 68 S.D. 111, 299 N.W. 66; Ferrar v. Hull, 330 Mich. 214, 47 N.W.2d 79; Fitch v. United Royalty Co., 143 Kan. 486, 55 P.2d 409; Gill Printing Co. v. Goodman, 224 Ala. 97, 139 So. 250; Harmerman v. Grats, 170 Minn. 38, 211 N.W. 961; Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc. (Utah), 58 P.2d 18; Lindermilder v. Shoup, 258 Mich. 679, 242 N.W. 807; McInnis v. Mortgage Co., 55 Kan. 259, 39 P. 1018; Moore v. Mitchell, 278 Mich. 10, 270 N.W. 197; Owen v. Off, 218 P.2d 563; Samberli v. Sledd, 143 Kan. 350, 55 P.2d 415; Sargeant v. Coppage (Cal.), 117 P.2d 412; Schrier v. Buss Bolinda Oil Co., 311 Mich. 118, 18 N.W.2d 392; Westhausier v. Landowner's Land Assn., 143 Kan. 404, 55 P.2d 406; Wichita Dimtile Co. v. Wright (Kan.), 285 P. 630; Wickersham v. Chicago B. Co., 18 Kan. 481; Sec. 5375, Code 1942; Alabama Blue Sky Law, Title 53 Sec. 5(7), Alabama Code; 47 Am. Jur. 594; Anno. 87 A.L.R. 42, et seq.; 21 C.J. 1206; 18 C.J.S., Corporations, Sec. 210 p. 644; Vol. XIV, Fletcher's Cyclopedia of Corporations (Perm. ed.), Sec. 6763-6761. Karl Wiesenburg, Pascagoula, for appellees.

  7. Ogden Livestock Shows v. Rice

    159 P.2d 130 (Utah 1945)   Cited 3 times

    In its cross assignment of error respondent attacks the action of the court in dismissing its first count based upon the finding that defendant was not a trespasser when he drove his truck upon the bridge of the plaintiff. It is a principle too well embedded in the law of this state to require extended discussion that in an action at law, the findings of the trial court are conclusive and may not be disturbed by this court if there is competent evidence to support them. Yowell et al. v. Ogden State Bank, 75 Utah 312, 285 P. 285; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Matthews et al., 74 Utah 495, 280 P. 729; Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc., et al., 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18; Vadner v. Rozzelle, 88 Utah 162, 45 P.2d 561; Greco v. Gentile, 88 Utah 255, 53 P.2d 1155; Van Leeuwen v. Huffaker, 78 Utah 521, 5 P.2d 714. The trial court made and entered its finding number two on plaintiff's second count, as follows: