Consolidated School District No. 19 v. Enge

155 P. 301, 17 Ariz. 559, 1916 Ariz. LEXIS 140
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided February 25, 1916·No. Civil No. 1516·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The certificate of the clerk of the superior court shows that on July 1, 1915, judgment was entered for appellee; that a motion for a new trial was overruled on June 28th; that the notice of appeal was filed on July 2d; and that no further steps to perfect the appeal were taken.

[560]*560We think the motion to dismiss should he granted for two reasons:

First, because no appeal bond or supersedeas bond or affidavit in lieu thereof has been filed and approved in the lower court. Town of Yuma v. Winn, ante, p. 92, 148 Pac. 286.

Second, for lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal.

Let the order go dismissing ease, with costs to appellee.

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

Consolidated School District No. 19 v. Enge, 155 P. 301, 17 Ariz. 559, 1916 Ariz. LEXIS 140 (Ark. 1916).

155 P. 301 (Consolidated School District No. 19 v. Enge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lount v. Strouss
162 P.2d 430 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1945)
Town of Flagstaff v. Gomez
202 P. 401 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1921)