Worthen v. Shurtleff and Andrews, Inc. ( 1967 )

HENRIOD, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent. I prefer to stick with the decision in McConnell v. Commission of Finance,¹ which was concurred in unanimously, the author of this case participating.

The main opinion now reverses the McConnell case with gratuitous words that “paragraph (1) seems unmistakably clear.” Four years ago, in McConnell, we did not share such unmistakable clarity. It is now said that everything in the statute should be read together to effect equity, except that jn reading them together you lend importance to each section in chronological order, not per tout et non per my. The reversal now of the McConnell case of only four years vintage, which case seems to me to be as sensible, may be commendable for candor, but a wee bit disturbing to lawyers down town who have to advise their clients.

CALLISTER, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD, J.

1 . 13 Utah 2d 395, 375 P.2d 394.