Meyer v. Killingsworth

Arizona Supreme Court

Meyer v. Killingsworth

238 P.2d 1097, 73 Ariz. 143, 1951 Ariz. LEXIS 172

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1951

Docket5315

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 P.2d 1097 (Meyer v. Killingsworth) 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

Meyer v. Killingsworth, 238 P.2d 1097, 73 Ariz. 143, 1951 Ariz. LEXIS 172 (Ark. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

UDALL, Chief Justice.

This appeal, on the court’s own motion, should be dismissed for the appellant has wholly failed to comply with Rule X of this court as to his assignments of error.

Appellant makes four assignments of error as follows:

“I That the Court erred in admitting into evidence plaintiff’s Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G, (Rep.Trans. pages 22, 23; Abs. of Rec. pages 35-47).

“II That the Court erred in overruling the Appellant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict made upon the completion of all evidence in the case.

*144 “III That the Verdict is not justified by and is contrary to law and the judgment based thereon is likewise not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law.

“IV That the Court erred in overruling the Appellant’s motion to set Aside the Verdict in Accordance with a Directed Verdict and in the Alternative a Motion for a New Trial.”

It is plain that these do not comply with the provisions of the above rule as they state no grounds why the trial court was in error. See Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 72 Ariz. 406, 236 P.2d 732, and the cases cited therein.

Notwithstanding appellant’s failure to comply with our rules relative to assignments of error, we have examined the entire record including the reporter’s transcript and find that appellant had a fair trial and the jury was properly instructed as to the law. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to whether the written agreement of the parties had been cancelled and a new oral contract entered into, but that issue was resolved by the jury, as triers of the fact, adversely to the contention of the appellant. Where the evidence is conflicting and reasonable men could draw different conclusions as to the ultimate facts, this court will not disturb those findings. City of Phoenix v. Green, 49 Ariz. 376, 66 P.2d 1041; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239, 119 P.2d 116; Chester v. Chester, 69 Ariz. 104, 210 P.2d 331.

Upon the ground heretofore stated this appeal is ordered dismissed.

STANFORD, PHELPS, DE CONCINI and LA PRADE, JJ., concur.

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

UDALL, Chief Justice.

This appeal, on the court’s own motion, should be dismissed for the appellant has wholly failed to comply with Rule X of this court as to his assignments of error.

Appellant makes four assignments of error as follows:

“I That the Court erred in admitting into evidence plaintiff’s Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G, (Rep.Trans. pages 22, 23; Abs. of Rec. pages 35-47).

“II That the Court erred in overruling the Appellant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict made upon the completion of all evidence in the case.

*144 “III That the Verdict is not justified by and is contrary to law and the judgment based thereon is likewise not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law.

“IV That the Court erred in overruling the Appellant’s motion to set Aside the Verdict in Accordance with a Directed Verdict and in the Alternative a Motion for a New Trial.”

It is plain that these do not comply with the provisions of the above rule as they state no grounds why the trial court was in error. See Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 72 Ariz. 406, 236 P.2d 732, and the cases cited therein.

Notwithstanding appellant’s failure to comply with our rules relative to assignments of error, we have examined the entire record including the reporter’s transcript and find that appellant had a fair trial and the jury was properly instructed as to the law. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to whether the written agreement of the parties had been cancelled and a new oral contract entered into, but that issue was resolved by the jury, as triers of the fact, adversely to the contention of the appellant. Where the evidence is conflicting and reasonable men could draw different conclusions as to the ultimate facts, this court will not disturb those findings. City of Phoenix v. Green, 49 Ariz. 376, 66 P.2d 1041; Standard Oil Co. v. Shields, 58 Ariz. 239, 119 P.2d 116; Chester v. Chester, 69 Ariz. 104, 210 P.2d 331.

Upon the ground heretofore stated this appeal is ordered dismissed.

STANFORD, PHELPS, DE CONCINI and LA PRADE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 P.2d 1097, 73 Ariz. 143, 1951 Ariz. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-killingsworth-ariz-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack