Brown v. Peterson

235 P. 1117, 28 Ariz. 121, 1925 Ariz. LEXIS 237
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. Peterson. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 Ariz. 418
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided May 22, 1925·No. Civil No. 2193.·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

(For opinion, see 27 Ariz. 418, 233 P. 895.) We have examined carefully the petition for rehearing in the above-entitled action. No new points have been suggested in the petition, and we see no reason to recede from the position taken by us in the original opinion. In justice to Messrs. Dougherty Dougherty, attorneys for appellants, however, and at their request, we think we should make the statement that they did not represent the plaintiff herein in the transaction upon which this suit is based. Their connection with the *Page 122 matter commenced with the filing of this particular case. The motion for rehearing is denied.

McALISTER, C.J., and ROSS, J., concur.

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

Brown v. Peterson, 235 P. 1117, 28 Ariz. 121, 1925 Ariz. LEXIS 237 (Ark. 1925).

235 P. 1117 (Brown v. Peterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Peterson
233 P. 895 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1925)