*1 justified concluding court was that six P.2d supplied rollers had with the machine to he WILCOX failure do so constituted failure breach to install and was substantial DISTRICT COURT SALT OF LAKE respondents entitling contract re- et COUNTY al. scission. Appellant further contends that re spondents by writing it a letter that re portion of them from that the con leased required provide

tract it to a com which

petent equipment at man to install the seller,

expense of the was a of their waiver by the

right to have the machine installed completely appellant arguing,

seller. so upon which such

overlooks the condition e., offered, agent their i.

waiver Raymond install the should instead

Mr. use it teach them how to since

machine and press.

they about the nothing knew right have a waiver of

was not installed, a waiver of but most

machine “by installed the machine to have right by the competent man” chosen seller. ap- carefully all considered

We have error but assignments of

pellant’s other merit to them.

find no respondents.

Affirmed. Costs crockett LARSON,

HENRIOD, JJ., and concur.

Judge, J., being disqualified did her. We believe judgment der a Henderson, Wil- &

Ray, Rawlins, Jones taken. special plea well hold plain- Ingebretsen, liam 512, p. Restatement, Sec. tiff. The Conflicts maintained “no 617 states that Andreasen, Royal Schoenhals, L.E. J. *2 the state any outside against administrator defendants. for against the appointment a claim of his decedent,” commenta- the estate of the and HENRIOD, maintains al- rule tor then asserts the Justice. against though the was commenced action petition of is- a out case arises the alive where the while and decedent which we prohibition, of of a writ suance jurisdiction person. of his court had now make which we and temporarily issued principle enunciated We adhere the petitioner. costs to with permanent appears govern in the Restatement which Salt Lake of the District Court In 19Z8 generally the case before us. It seems in favor decree County a divorce entered personal representative be conceded that a Don against Wilcox and Abbott of Edna sued, person of a can or be or deceased sue an award Wilcox, which was in included E. party proceeding a to an action in or a minor support for per month as of $30 capacity representative, only his official as in in Cal- 1953 died E. Wilcox Don child. appointed, in state he and wherein was appointed petitioner herein ifornia and personality role extended of his as Wilcox, on Edna Abbott extraterritorially his executrix. exist deceased does not of the District only to issue out but within the four corners of the caused petition, here, action, appointment,1 except, order to state his as an of in divorce said Court where, appearance by special not extraor should or why said executrix cause show dinary jurisdiction to en in said divorce writ the court’s defendant as be substituted not be en- is attacked. litigation should tertain the itself why judgment and such, her, for the amount as tered and crockett support money. unpaid for the due

found WADE, JJ., concur. and was effected order of the service Personal appeared specially and She in California. disqualified, J., being did the Utah Court of jurisdiction assailed in not as or ren- defendant to substitute either pp. 851; (1951), notes 849 and ed. supra; 3rd Laws, Restatement, Conflict 1. 1925, 379, Gould, Administrators, N.Y. v. 240 McMaster Wills, Schouler, Executors and 792; Winbigler 556, 40 A.L.R. N.E. 148 (1915), II, Secs. 5th ed. l. Vo 562, 1920, Cal.App. Shattuck, 195 P. by v. Laws,” 1173; “Conflict Reese, Cheatham, Goodrich, Griswold LEWIS, Judge (concurring in P.2d 159 result). PREAS PHEBUS et al. agree I that the court is district without jurisdiction in the instant case and that the perman- writ should accordingly be made opinion, however, majority

ent. The an- very broad and all-inclusive rule

nounces foreign effect that a administrator can party litigant

never be courts is

this State. No distinction made between jurisdiction original sought where

actions simple actions where substitu- Pro- sought under the Rules of Civil

tion is of actions I the latter class am

cedure.2 say foreign prepared to administrator Re- substituted case. any

could not be 3 under well-reasoned authorities

cent and rule,4 clearly nega- comparable federal the main “four corners” rule of

tiving the my hesitancy. supports

opinion, 25(a) parties under Rule

Substitution dependent, among things, other

(1) pre-requisites, (a)

two basic A cause of survives, (b)

action that case, the

action. In the instant divorce was juris- continuing

long since final and the parties court over the had

diction of the of the death

been invoked the time no pending Wilcox. There was

Don E. pertains phrase

action as the substitution parties. For reason I concur

result. 25(a) (1) 25(a) (1) Rules of 4.Rule Civil Procedure. Federal Rules Utah Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. Corporation Solvents 3. Commercial Jasspon, D.C., F.R.D.