*1 general set out in 69 law is also ELLETT, Justice: Transactions, 394: Am.Jur., Sec. Secured Mr. Adams by initiated This lawsuit Code the Uniform Commercial Since personal prop- a boat and the return of for requires description as merely only such wrongful alleged damages the erty identify reasonably is sufficient to what is no There detention thereof. taking and described, specific, is or not it is detention, taking and the right claim generally take that the courts it follows the property other than any, personal if descriptions approach to set a liberal boat. statement, financing particu- forth in a validity is herein The issue involved larly where it is difficult to describe ap- financing to the statement accurately. Accordingly, it property pellant of the bank the manufacturer fail- follows that a court will overlook a boat as a “Seaflite which described description, set a detailed ure to forth # Offshore D.M.F.A. 0082 M-75L.” col- including the serial number of the lateral, is actual number the boat D.M.F.A. financing in a statement. M-74L. underscored numerals partial summary judgment re- is year during indicate which boat try versed and the case is remanded to was manufactured. The serial number and relating personal property to the issues description engine boat is boat. are awarded Costs correctly stated in the appellant. document. gave partial summary The trial court respondent in favor of the on TUCKETT, MAUGHAN, JJ„ concur. ground “Financing that the Statement
. was defective and the defect was security
sufficient to defeat the bank’s
terest in the boat
The trial court holding error in figures showing year of man- ufacture invalidated the statement. An COMPANY, CHEVRON CHEMICAL excellent Boyce article Professor Appellant, found in 1966 page Utah Law Journal 52 wherein the law is set out and cases Craig Heileson, MECHAM Kent W. and R. cited. The article states: Respondents. Defendants and description goods required No.
to be security agreement contained Supreme need not be provide so as exact May 24, 1976. reader of specific instrument knowledge of property or collateral provides
involved. The code
description personal property or real
estate will be sufficient “whether or specific
not it reasonably if iden- tifies what is described. [70A-9-110]
Thus, the requirement personal
property in goods the form of be de- number,
scribed serial or similar iden-
tification, repudiated opinion, (1966 General,
Utah Attorney 31).
agreement dated October 1968. The County District Court of Salt Lake where present judg- action filed was entered ment in favor of the defendant Mecham plaintiff and appeals. guaranty agreements
The two were plaintiff purpose for the of indemni- fying against might losses incur on its accounts with Basin Com- Great Grain pany, Tetonia, located at The Idaho. went to trial in the District Court of County. Lake find- Salt court made ings challenged of fact which are not on appeal. Among things the court plaintiff corporation found that the awas corporation doing Delaware business Idaho, California, Utah; Oregon, always the defendant Mecham has been a of the state of resident court further found that Mecham was an officer of the Great Basin Grain April, 1970, from its formation until when corpora- disassociated from the himself so advised. was plaintiff tion and the against brought Idaho was action in anAs as an individual. Mecham defendant one Basin, made Mecham Great officer with he had no but trip to Idaho lending insti- customer, supplier, or defendant discussed tution but Grain, Basin Heileson, president of Great company. affairs only internal Craig Smay, Leonard Lewis and E. J. presence a business Cott, never asserted Mecham Bagley, of Van Cornwall & McCar- address appel- plaintiff business thy, City, Salt Lake he had no in Idaho lant. telephone a state, did he have nor in that never Allen, Pratt, individual Clyde listing. Ronald As an Frank & J. Boyce, City, N. Salt Lake for defendants in Ida- transaction a business consummated respondents. found further The court ho. and_ action upon in the sued struments TUCKETT, Justice: Port- in its plaintiff by the prepared were state identify the plaintiff and do not suing on land office judg- Me- place performance. ment entered Idaho as notify- guaranty 13, 1975, said February Mecham on in the Sev- terminated cham. office. Portland ing plaintiff enth District Court Judicial appearance special amade Idaho. The action of in the Mecham juris- challenge the counts, proceedings to Idaho court was in two the first judg- court, but nevertheless ing July on of that guaranty dated diction - against him. 1968. The of an ment was second count consisted two to count respect further found cause of action the Bank of Idaho, guaran- filed complaint guaranty Salt Lake to the of a ty Mecham to the Bank of Salt Mecham was executed commenced in that state. guaranteeing for the individual defendants in that case had far obligation an Basin to the bank. more of Great contacts in the state of prepared The instrument in Salt Lake did up- Mecham in this case. This court City by the Bank of Lake and executed held the trial court that the *3 there. The Bank of Idaho had jurisdic- court failed to obtain its claim to the suit. tion through over the individual defendants long-arm its statute and concluded that the of the Idaho court was as- Jurisdiction judgment proceedings entered in those by reason of over Mecham Idaho’s serted was not entitled in to full faith and credit quite long-arm statute. statute the state of Utah. long-arm similar to the statute as Utah of other well as the of a number statutes supports record in this case determining or not the In states. trial finding court’s that the acts of Me- jurisdiction, court of forum state has cham in the of performed Idaho were guidelines have been certain solely standards capacity in his as an officer of the enunciated the courts the various corporation. find no error in We jurisdictions. Those include the standards the record and the following guidelines: The nature and (1) low affirmed. state;
quality (2) in the forum and ELLETT contacts; relationship quantity (3) of such contacts; JJ., concur. (4) interest cause providing in a forum the forum state MAUGHAN, (dissenting): residents; Justice (5) the convenience parties. support of its Reference is my made to dissents jurisdiction claim that had been obtained Union Co. Corp., Ski v. Union Plastics 548 over P.2d (Utah 1976), court relies 1257 and Cate Rental Lawn,1 heavily upon v. Company, the case Salter v. Whalen & (Utah 1976). decision of the United States District P.2d 707 jurisdic- of Massachusetts wherein upheld. tion was In the defendant that case organized corporation
had which later bankrupt,
became he had for which guarantor, agent
become a alter as its
ego. That court found that used, organized,
had and controlled corporation Utah, bankrupt The STATE of for the sole Respondent, carrying out his with the bishop receive 10 under which was to SUNTER,
per per Emil Martin bishop Defendant cent of cent and the Appellant. nursing profits of homes. certain No. 14363. in this are dissimilar. entirely facts problem The identical have we Supreme Court of Utah. this court Kleeck before case of Van May 1976. Prod Creamery, Inc. v. Western Frozen upon Company ucts which was also suit an Idaho court. “long-arm interesting It to note that the same as that in force
statute” was the
time the action
F.Supp.
1. 294