*1 inquiry as reasonable investigation and such 269 P.2d 867 dictate; would under the circumstances care BECK further required them to make this whether v. so, income, if concerning the inquiry CO. DUTCHMAN COALITION MINES de jury to was for thereof the extent termine. No. 8011. Supreme Court Utah. plaintiffs 4, the request No. In their April 26, 1954. jury concern the court to instruct

asked excepted duly They also ing this element. refusal, instruct “to the court’s must defendants it must find misrepre upon the relied

reasonably have any.” if plaintiff,

sentations to the adequately called

matter was thus the defend Counsel attention.

court’s request both also aware

ants con the court exception but assured

and the instructions, “We think saying

cerning very have no good and are instructions to sub the failure

exceptions.” Because of question essen fact jury this

mit fraud, necessary it is to re establish

tial the case remand judgment and

verse the order. Costs Such a new trial. appellants.

McDonough, j., and henriod c. WADE, JJ., concur. J., participate does not

WORTHEN,

herein.

peals contending that the statute of limita- recovery tions above referred bars all judgment but entered $100 the trial court. testified that was em-

ployed by in 1921 and had attorney continuously been its time; that at that time it was agreed liberally paid he would be for his services respondent corporation when the had mon- ey him, sufficient which to but that he would reimbursed from time Neilsen, Hansen, Elias Salt Reid W. expenses. Briefly time stated, appellant. City, for Lake rendered, claimed he had inter Bird, Bushnell, Dan Jr., S. L. Richard alia, following respond- services to the respondent. City, for Lake Salt stock; kept ent: made assessments on its the minutes of meetings; the directors’ *3 WOLFE, Chief Justice. leases; litigation; drafted conducted made below, trips about one hundred to the plaintiff mine which by appellant, the Action in American Fork Canyon located ser- in legal and other $10,000 to recover for County in pur- Utah this state for respondent various the he rendered which vices poses, below, furnishing transportation; his own during a corporation, defendant trips Provo, many to county made the extending from 1921 to seat thirty period year County, of Utah to check the the action title respondent records resisted 1951. The purposes; and for other appellant prospec- secured paid the that it had on the lessees, tive $1,000, conducted them through of except the sum the for all his services negotiated them; mine by leases with the four- barred action was and that his loans secured from the to R.F.C. on actions for one of limitations year of lessees; respondent’s 78-12-25, the wrote contract, Utah about 600 Sec. on recover corporation; letters on behalf the of judgment a From did 1953. Annotated Code in the patents favor of jury obtaining mine; a verdict work in entered on prosecutes $1,500, this kept general he appellant manager its for who in lived contending the court apprised below did appeal in all California matters connected jury correctly operation the and that the instruct addition, the of the mine. In not inadequate appellant so entitle him the was claimed that his verdict law office in City respondent cross-ap- the trial. The Salt Lake served as office of the new respondent corporation Turning and that Utah first to a consideration the of stationery, stamps, telephone respondent’s cross-appeal, furnished it it contends that appellant stenographic He testified that can service. recover for services period 25, 1948, during thirty year he had re- rendered on or after which March respondent from fees for jury reasonably ceived services the found to be only $350, 10,000 $100, plus himself shares worth he did not commence his given 25, 1952, stock which were action until March and that re- director, covery prior to him that he could serve as a so services rendered to that 20,000 and an by providing additional shares which date is barred Sec. 78-12-25 given him in about knowledge four-year for a without limitation on actions to by meeting the board at a recover on of directors contract. The claims Angeles, running held in Los limita- of the statute of California, by he received no notice. Estimates as to the tions was acknowledgment tolled an nothing obligation by respondent’s ranged value of the stock from made president per one cent on March 1948. share. By special verdict the found 78-12-44, U.C.A.1953, provides: Section unpaid the reasonable all the non- value of any contract, “In case founded on otherwise, services, gratuitous legal and any part when principal or in- respond- by rendered for the terest paid, shall have been or ac- an period during the ent amounted to knowledgment existing liability, of an 31, 1947; August, from to October claim, promise debt any or or 1, 1947, during period from Nov. $300 same, made, shall have been 24, 1948; to March from March $100 may brought period action within the 24, 1952, 25, 1948, ap- March when the prescribed pay- for the same after such action; pellant or a total commenced this ment, acknowledgment promise; or period. thirty year $1,500 during the but such acknowledgment promise found was further writing, signed by must be in party that the individual intention of charged thereby. to be When right rendered items of the account by provisions of action is barred considered inde- should be statute, it shall be unavailable pendently continuation and not as a of a *4 a either as cause of or action series, payment was but that to be related of defense.” happening contingency, a upon the made September contingency occurred on It will be noted that the above respondent

11, at which time the made 1947 disjunctive: statute is worded in the “an appellant acknowledgment existing from the of an liability for a statement demand pay debt, liability claim, it owed him. or what or as to 108 debt; tq reference, added.) a of an

promise pay (Italics or a discussion old the same.” states, it must many recognition an acknowl amount to a clear Unlike statutes liability existing. pay presently not both the claim promise a are and edgment and. 498, Bauer, In Gilman, 75 Utah re Son F.2d necessary. (D.C.), Weir & Co. 57 v. 936; 1 on Contracts 294.” 286 § P. Williston Park v. pointed 167. in O’Donnell out case, Turning now to the instant 1193, 578, 1192, our that er, 48 160 P. Utah Harry we think a written one letter Kansas taken and statute was from Holden, corpo president of the state in Elder Supreme of that v. Court 1948, ration, appellant on March 604, Am.Rep. stated Dyer, 40 Kan. a meets the above test and constitutes following regards to what constitutes existing “acknowledgment sufficient of an acknowledgment existing of an a sufficient liability, claim,” interrupt debt or liability under statute: running of the statute limitations particular phrase form or

“‘No set running anew that That start it date. from anything that required; is language letter reads follows: party making will indicate “Mr. Clarence M. Beck that he is acknowledgment admits Bldg. “416 Felt claim, that he is on the still still liable City, “Salt Lake Utah satisfaction, that he is its bound for “Dear Clarence pay- liquidation and held its still nearly years two “It has been ment, to revive the debt or is sufficient trying your get have I been bill for necessity that claim; there is no on Dutchman Coalition promise also be should there ” I Mines Co. this have been unable to same, express implied.’ either do, your many promises to submit it Shurtliff, Co. v. Lake Transfer In Salt been have never fulfilled. 733, 736, 488, 489, P.2d Mr. 83 Utah feel “The Directors here that we Folland, court, speaking for this Justice a small should declare dividend but cases announce later Kansas noted that to do are reluctant so till all bill’s are distinct, direct, “nothing short of (cid:127)rule that paid. of a .unqualified, and intentional admission party subsisting debt on which a present, gone “We have over the work that be sufficient to take the obli- liable will you money done and the have we have it run- start gation you out paid togeather with the [sic] acknowl- He stated “The ning anew.” Thirty Thousand shares of you stock necessary to start the statute edgment feel received enclosed hint, dollars, more must be than check [running] anew for One thousand is a

109 pay- quarrel compensate ; the no very with the holding liberal one those cases of your compromise this date. for services to offers to ment can be and are often worded so to admit acknowledg- of no granted that will take for “We ment existing liability of an of cashing this check of constitutes the and/or promise unconditional pay the same. acceptance payment your full Each case must be largely determined on rendered.” services all its own think facts. We Holden’s letter “Sincerely acknowledgment contains an of an exist- “Harry Holden W. /s/ liability ing independently of the offer “President made in paragraph the third to settle the “Dutchman Co.” Coalition Mines $1,000. claim for We thus conclude that clear The above letter contains a the letter constituted sufficient acknowl- acknowledgment and definite that the re edgment toll the statute of limitations spondent presently appellant for owes the anew, it running start and that the ap his services. The letter refers to the appellant having commenced his action pellant’s claim as bill the directors years within four after the letter was pay presently desired to clear in order to by written was not barred the statute of way payment for the of a small dividend. limitations from recovering for all his express It no difference that Holden makes unpaid respondent. rendered services to the $1,000 ed thought that he was all that was Turning now to the contentions raised owing due statute satisfied appellant, by the he asserts that inas- by acknowledgment a “claim” and much as there been had an acknowledg- require not amount of the does by ment claim the of his within claim acknowledged, be or that claim prior years four commencement liquidated. be Williston on Contracts § action, requir- lower court erred in 188; 214; Contracts 1 Corbin on Re § ing per special to find verdict statement Contracts comment b. § certain facts which could have no bearing, promise any There was no offer or on the case unless the statute of limitations thing over but as been has heretofore part appellant’s barred all aor of the action. pointed out, promise necessary such is not complains Specifically, he Respondent under our statute. claims that required was to find whether the last work merely Holden’s letter was an offer to performed by completed was compromise a debt and refers us to cases 25, 1948; after before or March whether collated at 12 A.L.R. 544 holding that an intended that the individual unaccepted compromise offer to a claim between items account them services is not alone sufficient to toll remove the bar by of the statute of limitations. have rendered should be con- amount, they apparently ruling in- as a matter of independently or whether

sidered re- of a a continuation tended them to be appellant’s part law that of the claim no at the series, payment due lated was barred of limitations. series, respond- end whether the of the pure conjecture part would on our It ent terminated the superfluous hold the submission *6 only the Appellant urges that in 1947. way ap- questions any prejudiced in the (1) what was the case were issues in the pellant’s jury He concedes the case. appellant’s services the reasonable value of main, questions, resolved in the those favor- thirty year period served he during the nothing to find in able We the writ- him. had respondent, (2) what amount and the explanation ten in the oral instructions or therefor; appellant respondent paid the the given of the statute of limitations questions of fact asked the other that.the jury susceptible which is of intimation only served to confuse jury stated above appellant might that the be at for not fault ap- intimation the them and cast the bringing no his action sooner. There was bringing pellant fault for not might be at need, however, explanation for the court’s sooner, leading jury the award his action jury the of statute limitations the of compensation to only fraction of the him since it of law which did not was matter supports He his which entitled. he was them, directly by concern the court’s by pointing out that after the argument say nothing own that he admission could deliberate, they returned jury had retired explanation them the in explanation requested an into court determining them in limitations could aid limitations, which the statute of court the fact questions the several submitted to orally. made them. appellant The next asserts that the lower agree appellant the in court its discretion denying abused jury in requiring court erred

the trial motion trial. The for a new motion was questions of fact above enu to resolve upon grounds including made six they were not in the merated issues that the of the verdict amount was inade- are convinced But we that he was case. quate, have been appearing to rendered way prejudiced thereby. It not in passion preju- under the influence of superfluous act which neither added was a jury from answer nor detracted He argues jury totally dice. that the ig- question expert testimony submitted to them: only vital nored adduced him reasonable value of the “what was which he services rendered to the unpaid services?” appellant’s jury respondent thirty The year over the period question, $1,500, $12,000 reasonably answered that worth the were more, or gave $1,500 him judgment trial court for that and that which the awarded him, coupled which he treasury him; with the ad- $350 shares of stock were issued to receiving respondent mitted from the as that respondent as a director in the himself, gives for a small fees him performed non-legal certain work for fraction of the reasonable value of his contemplated was never he would be services. paid; ap- that certain services for which pellant sought recovery rendered were not Trial courts have wide latitude respondent for the but other granting in denying motions for new and that the had never notified Considering trials. the evidence which the respondent of his intention to look to respondent adduced, which evidence the payment. appellant’s it for expert say was entitled to we believe, cannot witnesses who testified that his services as a matter of law that the court below reasonably were worth or more denying abused its discretion the motion. opinions based their solely upon ap- appellant’s expert One witnesses pellant’s testimony. direct They did not who testified that all of the services which consider formulating opinions their rendered over respondent’s evidence that certain services thirty year period reasonably which the sought recovery $12,000, worth further testified in breaking performed were never or were never in- appellant’s figure that the down the *7 compensable. tended to be handling ej in an ectment suit and patenting judge The trial stated in the record that mining reasonably four were worth claims thought he inadequate, verdict was $6,000, and and that his at least services in appellant argues that he refused minority to dissuading a stockholder from grant a trial new because he was labor- bringing against a stockholders’ suit ing misconception under a of the corporation law as to reasonably were worth at least grant when upon he could a new trial $2,000. respondent’s president Yet testified inadequate damages. paid had been in full cannot ejectment in the suit and review the trial court’s thinking his services on the and that he not He refused to patenting grant trial, the claims had matter. the new his reasons regardless requested doing, dissuade the so to say cannot under the we evidence that commencing an he minority stockholder from his discretion. abused introduced that Evidence was also action. attempt actually did not appellant complains Lastly, Respond suit. off the stockholders’ stave refusal to submit a trial court’s certain testimony that adduced

ent further jury. Appel requested instruction to paid in full for his appellant had been 20,000 objection make an having failed to lant May, when up to services “a refusal, matter. where number of suits were insti- review that we will not n Rule Utah not tried” and “but tuted com- Procedure. of Civil Rules paratively occupied court,” little time was in Each judgment below is affirmed. appears “no difficult where trial to have party to bear his own costs. occurred, and the results to the litigation were moderate.” But McDonough, crockett and this court were not writer and cannot WADE, JJ., concur. jury case, in pretend be the this and our feelings personal such matter can- HENRIOD, (concurring). not exceed the four corners record Justice made. concur, only jury found I because the which, light in a facts viewed did on defendant, reasonably

most favorable to did justify the verdict. If the

could plaintiff, result could such a not believe 269 P.2d 1049 example, could For reached. In re HOWARD’S ESTATE. evidence that defendant’s have believed TRUST et al. CO., Ltd., NATIONAL compensation plaintiff received more had v. had of which he a than testified to or DUYS et al. plaintiff and Knowing the record. community, had the writer

reputation in the No. 7970. have believed the he would juror, been a Supreme Court Utah. would have concluded plaintiff hence April 29, 1954. testimony, that, the amount based on his month, per awarded, amounting to about $5 ridiculous, presented and would have

was opinion as to what contrast striking today are worth com-

lawyer’s 1897,1 where we held

pared those of attorneys fee for whose

reasonable eight over about

“employment extended

months, of their time was taken and much *8 in the months investi- first two

during made, they assistance of

gations receivers”, and the accountant expert Lake, Geyser Utah P. 152. Min. Co. v. Bank Salt 1.