Daggs v. Field

52 P. 773, 6 Ariz. 47, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 107
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 1898
DocketCivil No. 592
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 P. 773 (Daggs v. Field) 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
Daggs v. Field, 52 P. 773, 6 Ariz. 47, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 107 (Ark. 1898).

Opinion

DAVIS, J.

There are no sufficient assignments of error made by the appellants in their brief. The act of the legislature approved March 18, 1897, relating to appeals and writs of error, under the provisions of which this appeal is taken, provides, among other things, that “the brief of the plaintiff in error, or appellant, shall . . . contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all errors not assigned in the printed brief shall be deemed to have been waived.” The rules of the court likewise provide that all assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon. The brief filed by the appellants in the case at bar is a printed argument in support of what are therein termed ‘ ‘ contentions, ’ ’ and these, as previously held in the case of Daggs v. Hoskins, 5 Ariz. 236, 52 Pac. 350 (decided at the present term), under like conditions, do not satisfy the provision of the law nor the requirements of the rules of the court. No error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Street, C. J., Sloan, J., and Doan, J., concur.

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

Related

Bouldin v. Sheerer
187 P. 568 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1920)
Maricopa County v. Jordan
60 P. 693 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 P. 773, 6 Ariz. 47, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daggs-v-field-ariz-1898.