# Child v. Child

> Utah Supreme Court · December 20, 1958 · 8 Utah 2d 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576269

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry CHILD, Also Known as Henry Child, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eugene A. CHILD and Arvilla Child, His Wife, Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 20, 1958
- **Citations:** 8 Utah 2d 261; 332 P.2d 981; 1958 Utah LEXIS 222
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wade
- **Judges:** Crockett, Wade, McDonough, Henriod
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576269

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “natural increment” in value of property does not, standing alone, constitute prejudice for purposes of laches doctrine

## Opinion text

WADE, Justice
I concur.
However, I have grave doubts that the evidence is clear and convincing that the deed to Eugene was intended as a mortgage. This is a field in which different minds in many cases violently disagree. There are no standards by which this question can be definitely determined. The only standard which aids the court in determining this question is whether the finding that the evidence is clear and convinc *272 ing is reasonable in view of all the evidence. Such standard is very indefinite, for a finding which is reasonable to one person is often unreasonable to others.
In this case what seems reasonable to the trial judge and a majority of the court does not seem so reasonable to me. From a reading of the evidence it seems to me more probable that this property was purchased for Eugene than for his father. There are a lot of undisputed circumstances which, to me, so indicate. However, since the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, and a majority of this court agree that this evidence is clear and convincing, I concur with the main opinion in its treatment of the quantum of proof required.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9576269. Public record. Not legal advice.