*1 206 plaintiff’s may not indicate that the Reasonable differ on
case does minds way injuries compensation adequate affect his future amount of to com- pensate call our atten- earnings. The defendants this case for the in- juries this court which he has decisions of sustained. The amount awarded here subject, disportionate should is not so have dealt with as to mortality passion indicate that prejudice that both be. noted in most cases influ- annuity jury’s or combinations enced the decision.5 tables tables points appeal for the other urged of the two were admitted aiding jury determining probable appear justify defendants do not rever- earnings. sal. The loss future court below is only Respondent instruction affirmed. case the court in its is entitled to costs. giv- expectancy. life ferred to While HENRIOD, ELLETT, and CROCK- appear to be would ing of the instruction ETT, JJ., concur. nevertheless, jury would unnecessary, ' CALLISTER, T., C. concurs in result. knowledge event have group age in the expectancy life juris- from other Cases expectan- that life the rule
dictions follow in cases where
cy pertinent opin- are of injuries.3 We permanent the instruction was giving of ion HOBBS, Lee W. as Administrator with will prejudicial. annexed of the Estate of Deceased, contend Thirdly, Plaintiff and the defendants v. ap was excessive the verdict Ethel Jeanne Buhler FENTON and James E. the influ given under to have peared been Fenton, Respondents. Defendants and defend prejudice. The passion or ence of anything our attention ants fail direct the verdict the size of in the record 1971. prejudice. passion or would indicate approved jurisdictions have in other Courts this case.4 the award in similar to
awards Conservancy (Old.), City Okmulgee Dist. 5. Weber Basin Water v. Clark 730; Skeen, Henry, P.2d Utah 2d v. P.2d Roberts Const. Co. Suhrmann, Schneider Ala. 93 So.2d Harrelson, Company Ala. 4. Norton also 12 A.L.R.3d see 176 So.2d Richards,
Richards & Edward F. Rich- ards, Gary Frank, City, A. Salt Lake for plaintiff and appellant. Clyde,
Edward W. Salt City, Lake *2 respondents. defendants and CALLISTER, Chief Justice: Plaintiff, duly qualified administra- Joseph tor of the estate who died testate in March of initiated this personal property, action certain to recover namely, checking stocks and a account defendant, property from who claims the joint surviving as the al- tenant. Plaintiff leged property that held in tenancy daughter, with the decedent’s defendant, of convenience. he, Plaintiff demanded that as administra- tor, be adjudged personal' the owner of the property possession and entitled to the Crockett, J., specially concurred thereof, that defendant be declared to hold filed property required in trust and be
make an accounting of all the transactions which occurred from the time that placed Buhler property the first in tenancy, and compelled that defendant be to execute might such instruments as necessary pass legal title to By answer, defendant asserted her owner- ship plain- denied tiff or the possessed any heirs of the estate rights thereto.
At the conclusion of a trial merits, granted mo- court defendant’s proper- tenancy.1 to dismiss decreed that the placed lot In subject checking matter of ties which constituted the tenancy. account complaint prop- fully sole Decedent were defendant’s by placing understood that erty plaintiff right, stock, and that no account, title to the bank and home estate, or trial interest court therein. with full of survi- complaint did not sound vorship, observed automatically same would vest nor in fraud did reformation seek full title all of in the de- contract, if these matters even fendant his death and that decedent facts, pleaded, no had been there were desired and intended such There result. event, grant sought. the relief has been no claim made and no evidence fraud, mistake, indicate or undue influence. reargued the has appeal, plaintiff On sought Plaintiff has not reformation of prove that attempt in an evidence Jo- instrument, and the evidence did not daughter seph Buhler and does not reveal basis therefor. create instruments these written tend 1961, when decedent executed the will arrangement. tenancy j oint which was probate, admitted to he owned automobile, stocks, a judgment for substan- findings of fact which *3 $18,000, and his bank account. Subse- that decedent by record the reveal tiated quently, disposed of the automobile and joint ten- property to all of his transferred transferred the stocks and bank account to unpaid ancy with defendant tenancy; judgment the (proceeds) is early $18,000. 1950’s In the judgment still distributable under the terms of the to distribute expressed an intent decedent will.2 five chil- equally among his his The bank account and stock certificates continuing dren, and but beginning valid, constituted enforceable written con- trans- following years, he eleven over grounds upon tracts. There were two by him into various stocks held ferred one, which could assert his claim: tenants defendant’s names as and fraud, the contract was void because of survivorship. full with mistake, incapacity, or, infirmity; or other exe- legal consulted counsel and decedent second, equitable he was entitled to the placing building a deed cuted his home acting as a 3.“Besides muniment of death 1. This sold to a certificate of stock addi serves the and is not involved in this action. expressing tional the contract thereof, bequeaths $100 to each exists between the holder which - sons'; corporation, three the defendant her sister and all other holders ” remaining property Am.Jur.2d, . . . receive all the stock therein. equally. Corporations, 246, p. Sec. remedy TUCKETT, of reformation of a instru- ELLETT, HENRIOD and JJ., ment because such instrument failed concur. fraud, accident, mistake, or CROCKETT, spe- (concurring Justice of fraud and mistake ex- combination cially) : press agreement the real or intention of I concur premised the basis of the The latter case is law as Hales, stated in Hanks theory that to an un- parties came writing, which
derstanding, reducing it to I refer in order to repetition avoid here. See also through mutual mistake or mistake Greener Greener, fraud, 116 Utah provision mis- P.2d 194. I am was omitted or inserted, practical application not sure that in action is to takenly and the given fact situation there it would be change the instrument as to conform substantial difference between the parties state- principle ment I to and refer as stated agreed.4 in the main But in view action, state- the following joint tenancy fact that these account con- and Trust Bank Co. ment Continental special pur- tracts are often used for some the issue: resolves Kimball pose, my judgment important it is to tie previously expressed (1) in certain ideas: trying re- appellant is not Since that as to an account in claiming is not form the contract and presumption agreement is a that the is as fraud, mistake, incapacity, or other infir- therein; expressed (2) that as the de- conclusively mity, think that is we agreement, pository, under its it would be made and can- the contract as bound protected upon payment to either ten- intended parties show representative; (3) that proper ant or his contrary sult to that which law representa- their tenancy relationship imposes. presumptively tives the is valid affirmed; eq- given costs are and must be effect unless under principles uitable it is shown clear awarded to defendant. gee party Am.Jur., intention, of Instru- Reformation with that *4 gee. writing p. ments, 2, get be Restatement of shall a decree that gee. “Except express p. Contracts, 504, it shall 968: reformed so gees. 509-511, parties, third where if innocent tention of the stated unfairly intention be affected an identical will not have both pro- thereby.” embodied a terms to be as to the assignment, conveyance, posed written 154, 472, writing 442 P.2d discharge, Utah and a materially (1968). at variance them is executed convmcing evidence that there a dif- arrangement
ferent between parties. Analogous are situations where deed, though terms, absolute in its under
appropriate held to circumstances be mortgage effect Corey Roberts, Utah See Gibbons, 25 P.2d Gibbons Thornley
Utah al., Gailey
Land & Livestock Co. v. et 519, 143 SOLT,
Larry an infant Solt, guardian litem, ad Dean L. Plaintiff GODFREY,
Arvin F. Defendant and Respondent.