Miller v. Hopkins

Arizona Supreme Court

Miller v. Hopkins

73 P. 1130, 2 Ariz. 213, 1886 Ariz. LEXIS 25

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1886

DocketCivil No. 146

StatusPublished

This text of 73 P. 1130 (Miller v. Hopkins) 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

Miller v. Hopkins, 73 P. 1130, 2 Ariz. 213, 1886 Ariz. LEXIS 25 (Ark. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BARNES, A. J.

This is an appeal from the District Court of Cochise from a judgment against H. A. Tweed in proceedings supplemental to a judgment in favor of Miller against Hopkins and Packard, on the ground that Tweed was indebted to Packard and also had in his possession 269 head of cattle belonging to Packard. The evidence was taken before a referee and is to be found in the transcript in this ease. On the coming in of the report Tweed moved to set aside the order of the referee. The motion was overruled on the ground that Tweed should have appealed to the Supreme Court from such order. [214]*214And thereupon appeals were perfected to this court both from the order of the referee and the judgment of the court. The question is purely one of fact and nothing is to be gained by a review of the same in this opinion. Suffice it to say that we do not think the evidence sustains the order and the judgment. The order of the referee and the judgment of the court are reversed.

Porter, J., concurs.

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

Opinion by

BARNES, A. J.

This is an appeal from the District Court of Cochise from a judgment against H. A. Tweed in proceedings supplemental to a judgment in favor of Miller against Hopkins and Packard, on the ground that Tweed was indebted to Packard and also had in his possession 269 head of cattle belonging to Packard. The evidence was taken before a referee and is to be found in the transcript in this ease. On the coming in of the report Tweed moved to set aside the order of the referee. The motion was overruled on the ground that Tweed should have appealed to the Supreme Court from such order. [214]*214And thereupon appeals were perfected to this court both from the order of the referee and the judgment of the court. The question is purely one of fact and nothing is to be gained by a review of the same in this opinion. Suffice it to say that we do not think the evidence sustains the order and the judgment. The order of the referee and the judgment of the court are reversed.

Porter, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 P. 1130, 2 Ariz. 213, 1886 Ariz. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-hopkins-ariz-1886.