Hurley v. Wilky

158 P. 639, 18 Ariz. 270, 1916 Ariz. LEXIS 105
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJune 26, 1916
DocketCivil No. 1494
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 P. 639 (Hurley v. Wilky) 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
Hurley v. Wilky, 158 P. 639, 18 Ariz. 270, 1916 Ariz. LEXIS 105 (Ark. 1916).

Opinions

ROSS, C. J.

The appellees contend that, notwithstanding the erroneous instruction placing the burden of proof upon appellant, the case should not be sent back for a new trial, but that final judgment should be here entered as directed. Upon a reconsideration, we think the contention is right. As stated in the prevailing opinion, the minds of the parties did not meet — the evidence clearly shows this; and, if that be true, no cause of action exists in favor of appellant. The erroneous instruction was therefore immaterial.

It is suggested by appellant that, upon a retrial, evidence might be forthcoming to show that appellee, Wilky, did know he had bargained for Arizona Finance stock. We are bound by the record as made and presented to us, and may not consider what might have been urged upon a motion for a new trial in the court below.

We are satisfied that the order should have been one of affirmance, and it is accordingly now made.

FRANKLIN, J., concurs.

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

Related

Van Dusen v. Registrar of Contractors
472 P.2d 487 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 P. 639, 18 Ariz. 270, 1916 Ariz. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurley-v-wilky-ariz-1916.