O'Bryne v. Henley (Ala.), 50 South. 83... O'Connor v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Ia.), 106 N. W. 161. Odell v. Moss (Cal.), 70 Pac. 547.. 63 434 18 120 600 47 345 Owen v. Hill (Mich.), 34 N. W. 649. Р Page v. Millerton (Ia.), 86 N. W. 440.... Paine L. Co. v. City of Oshkosh (Wis.), 61 N. W. 1108. 192 601 Paul v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co. (N. J.), 57 Atl. 139.. 183 Paulson v. Boyd (Wis.), 118 N. W. 841..... 32 Pearce v. Wallace (Tex.), 124 S. W. 496. 176 Pearson v. City of Seattle (Wash.), 44 Pac. 884. Pittsburgh, C. & S. L. R. Co. v. Sullivan (Ind.), 40 N. E. 138. 303 Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Adams (Ind.), 5 N. E. 187.... 528 Plummer v. Kennedy (Mich.), 40 N. W. 433.. 345 Plumbing Sup. Co. v. Board of Education (S. D.), 142 N. W. 1131. 345 Porter v. Pettingill (Ore.), 110 Pac. 395.. 155 Portland v. Inman P. L. Co. (Ore.), 133 Pac. 829. 601 Potter v. Beal, 50 Fed. 860... 403 Pressed Brick Co. v. School District, 79 Mo. App. 669. 345 Pryor v. Davis (Ala.), 19 South. 440. 48 R Railway Co. v. Bank (Va.), 23 S. E. 935... 184 184 Railway Co. v. Cunningham (Tex.), 113 S. W. 767. 184 184 449 Reuter v. Lawe (Wis.), 68 N. W. 955. 601 Reynolds v. Gt. N. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 82 Pac. 161. St. Louis P. Ass'n v. Tierney (Mo.), 91 S. W. 968.. 394 608 San Antonio Brew. Ass'n v. Brents (Tex.), 88 S. W. 368. 63 395 Sappenfield v. Main St. (Cal.), 27 Pac. 590. 472 Schooling v. City of Harrisburg (Ore.), 71 Pac. 601. 601 Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653.. 163 Schultz v. Stringer et al. (Ia.), 150 N. W. 1063. 600 Seaboard, etc., Ry. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492. 284 Searles v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (N. Y.), 5 N. E. 66... Sibley v. Howard (N. Y.), 45 Am. Dec. 448. Sharon v. Sharon (Cal.), 7 Pac. 463.. Shaughnessy v. American Surety Co. (Cal.), 69 Pac. 250. Sheehan v. Butchers' Ass'n (Cal.), 76 Pac. 238.. Shirk v. City of Chicago, 93 N. E. 193.. Silvey v. Hodgson, 52 Cal. 363. Smithers v. Junker, 41 Fed. 101.. Smith v. Railway Co. (Mich.), 58 N. W. 651. 404 123 394 600 452 18 625 184 Smith v. Wisconsin Inv. Co., 89 N. W. 831. 519 Snell v. Bradbury (Cal.), 73 Pac. 150.. 123 Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 239.. 14 Sommer v. Carbon H. C. Co., 89 Fed. 54... 590 Southern Ass'n v. Laudenbeck, 5 N. Y. Supp. 901. 394 South Florida R. Co. v. Price (Fla.), 13 South 638. State ex rel. Hagestad v. Sullivan (Minn.), 69 N. W. 1094. 192 State v. Newman (La.), 25 South 408. 203 State v. Oshkosh, etc., Ry. Co. (Wis.), 77 N. W. 193. 403 Stockwell v. Gidney, 73 Me. 84.. 626 Stone v. Duvall, 77 Ill. 475. 14 Sturtevant Bros. & Co. v. Farmers', etc. Bank (Neb.), 87 N. W. 156 203 Sunny v. Hole, 15 Fed. 880... 528 T Tabor v. Tabor (Mich.), 99 N. W. 4.. Tacoma v. Nisqually Power Co. (Wash.), 103 Pac. 49. Tepper v. Royal Arcanum (N. J.), 47 Atl. 460.. Texas C. Ry. Co. v. Lyons (Tex.), 34 S. W. 362. Traction Co. v. Schenk (W. Va.), 80 S. E. 345. Union Inv. Co. v. Epley (Wis.), 160 N. W. 175..... Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Estes (Kans.), 16 Pac. 131.. United States v. American Surety Co., 161 Fed. 149. United States v. Kitel, 211 U. S. 370..... Unterharnscheidt v. Mo. St. L. Ins. Co. (Ia.), 138 N. W. 459. Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line (N. C.), 83 S. E. 326.. Green (Colo.), 128 Pac. 855.... 14 401 62 18 394 472 303 590 43 401 404 353 32 363 303 528 434 409 560 183 472 481 14 148 Ward v. Railway Co. (Kans.), 126 Pac. 1083. Weber v. Iowa City (Ia.), 93 N. W. 637.. Wharton v. Tacoma F. D. Co. (Wash.), 107 Pac. 1057. Wheeling, etc., Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 287. White Automobile Co. v. Dorsey (Md.), 86 Atl. 617. Whittaker v. Coombs, 14 Ill. App. 498.. Wicks v. Monihan (N. Y.), 29 N. E. 139. Wiles v. Suydham, 64 N. Y. 173. Wood v. Brush (Cal.), 13 Pac. 627. Works v. Hershey, 35 Ia. 340. 184 472 600 287 601 528 232 403 326 372 528 481 378 89 625 Y York v. C., M. & S. P. R. Co. (Ia.), 67 N. W. 574.... 303 312 Ꮓ Zane v. De Onativia (Cal.), 67 Pac. 685.... 86 REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH (Continued from Volume 49) TYNG v. CONSTANT-LORAINE INV. CO. No. 3029. Decided May 8, 1917. (165 Pac., 509.) 1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-OPTION-MEETING OF MINDS-RECOVERY OF PAYMENT. If minds of parties executing option agreement failed to meet upon question of amount of land to be conveyed plaintiff could recover from defendant amount paid thereunder. (Page 8.) 2. APPEAL AND ERROR-FORMER APPEAL REVERSAL-NECESSITY OF SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. After two appeals had previously been taken and four juries had passed on the facts and found in plaintiff's favor, judgment will not be interfered with unless defendant has been prejudiced in some substantial right during progress of trial or in submission of case to jury. (Page 9.) Appeal from the District Court, Third District: Hon. T. D. Lewis, Judge. Action by Charles Tyng against the Constant-Loraine Investment Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. AFFIRMED. Howat, Marshal, Macmillan & Nebeker and Robert H. Butterfield for appellant. Pierce, Critchlow & Barrette for respondent. Vol. 50-1 Tyng v. Constant-Loraine Inv. Co., 50 Utah 1 FRICK, C. J. The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $1,000 from the defendant, which plaintiff alleged the defendant wrongfully retained from him. This case has been here on appeal twice before. Tyng v. Constant-Loraine Inv. Co., 37 Utah, 304, 108 Pac. 1109; Id., 47 Utah, 330, 154 Pac. 767. Plaintiff recovered in both trials, but the judgments in his favor were reversed on defendant's appeals. On the last trial the plaintiff again prevailed, and the defendant again appeals. In view of the former opinions, to which we specially refer, and for the reason that both parties in their respective briefs state that "the evidence in this case is practically identical with that introduced on the previous trial of the case," we shall not state more of the record than is absolutely necessary to an understanding of the points decided. The controversy between the parties arose out of what is termed an option agreement to purchase certain real property in Salt Lake City. The transaction in question, however, arose between one R. A. Rowan, of Los Angeles, as the president of the defendant company, on the one hand, and the Equity Investment Company, a Utah corporation, upon the other. The plaintiff, however, succeeded to all of the rights of said company by assignment before the action was commenced. The transactions in question here were initiated by one Thomas E. Rowan, a real estate broker of Salt Lake City, by a telegram dated September 4, 1907, which was transmitted to said R. A. Rowan at Los Angeles. The telegram reads: "Advise cash price west side State, taxes prorated, whether leased." The telegram was addressed to R. A. Rowan for the reason that the title to the property inquired about was in him. On the following day R. A. Rowan wired as follows: "Will accept fifty thousand. Property now mortgaged for twenty thousand at five per cent. Leases very short. See Kelsey & Gillespie for exact information." To that telegram Thomas E. Rowan, on the same day, replied: |