Boston & Arizona Smelting & Reduction Co v. Lewis

20 P. 310, 3 Ariz. 5, 1889 Ariz. LEXIS 2
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 19, 1889
DocketCivil No. 213
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 20 P. 310 (Boston & Arizona Smelting & Reduction Co v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boston & Arizona Smelting & Reduction Co v. Lewis, 20 P. 310, 3 Ariz. 5, 1889 Ariz. LEXIS 2 (Ark. 1889).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit adverse to the application for a patent to a mineral claim, alleging that defendants, in their application for a patent to the Merry Christmas claim, had included a portion of the Knoxville claim. The pleadings attack the Knoxville location, alleging that it was not marked on the ground by monuments; also that, if ever properly located, it has been abandoned by failure to do annual assess[6]*6ment work. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The evidence is very voluminous, and very conflicting. We find in the record much testimony incompetent, because hearsay, admitted over the objections of defendants, and much testimony objectionable in character that seems to have been admitted, but not formally ruled upon. Had this cause been tried by a jury, a verdict rendered with this evidence before them could not stand. But, in appeals from a trial before the court, the court of last resort will look into the record to see if the conclusion is right after discarding the incompetent evidence; assuming that the trial judge did not consider the same. A harmless error will not he ground for reversal. We have to that end carefully examined this record, and conclude that the findings should not he disturbed. There is competent legal evidence to sustain the conclusions in this case, and we cannot consider its weight; that is for the trial court.

The judgment of the court below is “affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wineinger v. Wineinger
669 P.2d 971 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
Duncan v. Mack
122 P.2d 215 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1942)
Glaspie v. Williams
51 P.2d 254 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1935)
Indian Fred v. State
282 P. 930 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1929)
Stark v. Stark
259 P. 401 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1927)
Hammons v. Hands
254 P. 485 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1927)
In Re Citizens' Bank Trust Co.
254 P. 485 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1927)
First Baptist Church v. Connor
245 P. 932 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1926)
Shannon Copper Co. v. Potter
108 P. 486 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 P. 310, 3 Ariz. 5, 1889 Ariz. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-arizona-smelting-reduction-co-v-lewis-ariz-1889.