McCloskey v. Renfro

Arizona Supreme Court

McCloskey v. Renfro

57 P.2d 1140, 47 Ariz. 534, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 245

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1936

DocketCivil No. 3711.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 P.2d 1140 (McCloskey v. Renfro) 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

McCloskey v. Renfro, 57 P.2d 1140, 47 Ariz. 534, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 245 (Ark. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, J.

This is an appeal by A. G. McCloskey, justice of the peace of No. 1 precinct, Navajo county, from a judgment of -the superior court of said county, in a certiorari proceeding, vacating and annulling a judgment entered by appellant in said justice court in favor of Ralph Whiting and against R. T. Renfro for $100 principal and $9.10 costs.

The appeal must be dismissed for two reasons:

1. The justice of the peace who rendered such judgment is not an aggrieved party. Section 3658, Rev. Code. 1928. He has no property or financial interest in the litigation and the way the case was decided is a matter of absolute indifference to him as a presiding judge. The action is between Whiting and Renfro, who are the interested parties. We know of no rule of law that will permit a judge whose judgment is annulled or vacated to become a party to the action and prosecute an appeal. Doubtless many of the judges on occasion would like to appeal, but this is the first time we have known of one doing so. If the superior court erroneously vacated the judgment entered by appellant in the justice court, the party injured thereby may, in a proper proceeding, seek to have the matter reviewed, but not the judge of the court.

2. Granting that the appeal is in the interests of Whiting, since the judgment that was annulled and vacated was in his favor and he the aggrieved *536 party, still the matter is not properly before this court. The action is to recover a money judgment. The amount in controversy being less than. $200, and the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute not being involved in the action, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 4, art. 6, Constitution. See, also, Kinnison v. Superior Court of Pima County, 46 Ariz. 133, 46 Pac. (2d) 1087; City of Phoenix v. Greer, 43 Ariz. 214, 29 Pac. (2d) 1062; Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Hinton, 20 Ariz. 266, 179 Pac. 963; State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp, 15 Ariz. 24, 135 Pac. 718; Tyler v. District Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 Pac. 315.

The appeal is dismissed.

LOCKWOOD, C. J., and McALISTER, J., concur.

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

ROSS, J.

This is an appeal by A. G. McCloskey, justice of the peace of No. 1 precinct, Navajo county, from a judgment of -the superior court of said county, in a certiorari proceeding, vacating and annulling a judgment entered by appellant in said justice court in favor of Ralph Whiting and against R. T. Renfro for $100 principal and $9.10 costs.

The appeal must be dismissed for two reasons:

1. The justice of the peace who rendered such judgment is not an aggrieved party. Section 3658, Rev. Code. 1928. He has no property or financial interest in the litigation and the way the case was decided is a matter of absolute indifference to him as a presiding judge. The action is between Whiting and Renfro, who are the interested parties. We know of no rule of law that will permit a judge whose judgment is annulled or vacated to become a party to the action and prosecute an appeal. Doubtless many of the judges on occasion would like to appeal, but this is the first time we have known of one doing so. If the superior court erroneously vacated the judgment entered by appellant in the justice court, the party injured thereby may, in a proper proceeding, seek to have the matter reviewed, but not the judge of the court.

2. Granting that the appeal is in the interests of Whiting, since the judgment that was annulled and vacated was in his favor and he the aggrieved *536 party, still the matter is not properly before this court. The action is to recover a money judgment. The amount in controversy being less than. $200, and the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute not being involved in the action, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 4, art. 6, Constitution. See, also, Kinnison v. Superior Court of Pima County, 46 Ariz. 133, 46 Pac. (2d) 1087; City of Phoenix v. Greer, 43 Ariz. 214, 29 Pac. (2d) 1062; Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Hinton, 20 Ariz. 266, 179 Pac. 963; State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp, 15 Ariz. 24, 135 Pac. 718; Tyler v. District Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 Pac. 315.

The appeal is dismissed.

LOCKWOOD, C. J., and McALISTER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 P.2d 1140, 47 Ariz. 534, 1936 Ariz. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccloskey-v-renfro-ariz-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack