Hardiker v. Rice

Arizona Supreme Court

Hardiker v. Rice

94 P. 1094, 11 Ariz. 401, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 74

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 1908

DocketCivil No. 1040

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 P. 1094 (Hardiker v. Rice) 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

Hardiker v. Rice, 94 P. 1094, 11 Ariz. 401, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 74 (Ark. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

— The appellant has made the following assignment of errors: First, in the admission and rejection of evidence by him offered, duly excepted to, and in the reception of evidence over his objection, duly excepted to; second, because certain of the findings of fact are inconsistent with, and not based upon any, evidence offered in the trial of said action; third, because the findings of fact do not cover certain questions submitted to the trial court about which evidence and proof was offered; fourth, because, under the findings of fact as made, the conclusions of law should have been in favor of the contestant and against the contestee, whereas they were made and entered in favor of the contestee, and against the contestant; -fifth, because the evidence is insufficient to sustain certain, findings of fact as made; sixth, because the evidence, taken altogether, does not sustain the judgment rendered; seventh, because upon the whole record and findings of fact made artel evidence the judgment of the court should have been in favo? of appellant and against appellee, whereas it was by the trial'Njourt rendered thereon in favor of appellee and against appellant.

The appellee makes objection that the errors assigned are all general and indefinite. The objection is well founded. The assignments of error are not sufficiently specific to enable us to review them, and are of the same character as tifióse which we have in repeated decisions of this court refused to consider. The rules relating to assignments and specifications of error have been so long in force, and we have ¿0 often decided that a failure to make proper assignments! amounts to a waiver of all errors which are not fundamental, that it would seem there should be no longer occasion for . disregard to these plain requirements. Rules Supreme Court, 8 Ariz. iv; Marks v. Newmark, 3 Ariz. 224, 28 Pac. 960; Christy v. Arnold, 4 Ariz. 263, 36 Pac. 918; Ward v. Sherman, 7 Ariz. 277, 64 Pac. 434; Charbouleau v. Shields, 9 Ariz. 73, 76 Pac. 821; Daniel v. Gallagher, ante, p. 151, 89 Pac. 412; Prescott Nat. Bank v. Head, ante, p. 213, 90 Pac. 328; Liberty Mining & Smelting Co. v. Geddes, ante, p. 54, 90 Pac. 332.

No fundamental error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

— The appellant has made the following assignment of errors: First, in the admission and rejection of evidence by him offered, duly excepted to, and in the reception of evidence over his objection, duly excepted to; second, because certain of the findings of fact are inconsistent with, and not based upon any, evidence offered in the trial of said action; third, because the findings of fact do not cover certain questions submitted to the trial court about which evidence and proof was offered; fourth, because, under the findings of fact as made, the conclusions of law should have been in favor of the contestant and against the contestee, whereas they were made and entered in favor of the contestee, and against the contestant; -fifth, because the evidence is insufficient to sustain certain, findings of fact as made; sixth, because the evidence, taken altogether, does not sustain the judgment rendered; seventh, because upon the whole record and findings of fact made artel evidence the judgment of the court should have been in favo? of appellant and against appellee, whereas it was by the trial'Njourt rendered thereon in favor of appellee and against appellant.

The appellee makes objection that the errors assigned are all general and indefinite. The objection is well founded. The assignments of error are not sufficiently specific to enable us to review them, and are of the same character as tifióse which we have in repeated decisions of this court refused to consider. The rules relating to assignments and specifications of error have been so long in force, and we have ¿0 often decided that a failure to make proper assignments! amounts to a waiver of all errors which are not fundamental, that it would seem there should be no longer occasion for . disregard to these plain requirements. Rules Supreme Court, 8 Ariz. iv; Marks v. Newmark, 3 Ariz. 224, 28 Pac. 960; Christy v. Arnold, 4 Ariz. 263, 36 Pac. 918; Ward v. Sherman, 7 Ariz. 277, 64 Pac. 434; Charbouleau v. Shields, 9 Ariz. 73, 76 Pac. 821; Daniel v. Gallagher, ante, p. 151, 89 Pac. 412; Prescott Nat. Bank v. Head, ante, p. 213, 90 Pac. 328; Liberty Mining & Smelting Co. v. Geddes, ante, p. 54, 90 Pac. 332.

No fundamental error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 P. 1094, 11 Ariz. 401, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardiker-v-rice-ariz-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack