Shelton v. Culley

Arizona Supreme Court

Shelton v. Culley

220 P. 229, 25 Ariz. 530, 1923 Ariz. LEXIS 166

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1923

DocketCivil No. 2112

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 P. 229 (Shelton v. Culley) 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

Shelton v. Culley, 220 P. 229, 25 Ariz. 530, 1923 Ariz. LEXIS 166 (Ark. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, J.

This was an action by Culley, as indorsee, against Shelton, as maker, to recover on a negotiable promissory note. The defendant in his answer admits the execution of the note, but alleges it was given without any consideration, and that plaintiff became the owner .thereof after it was due and with notice of the failure of consideration. He further alleges the note was given as evidence in part of what the payee, O. B. Nay, was to receive in the [531]*531event of a successful sale of a block of stock of a certain mining corporation to be organized by defendant and said O. B. Nay and others, and that such stock was not sold, and therefore the note was without consideration. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and verdict and judgment entered for plaintiff for the amount sued for.

Defendant’s assignments of error are directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, it being contended that the evidence showed plaintiff was not a holder of note in due course. The conflict of evidence on that issue was squarely before the trial court; he saw the witnesses and heard them testify; his opportunities for correctly weighing the evidence were better than ours, and we therefore defer to his judgment, as is the rule in this jurisdiction.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

McALISTER, C. J., and LYMAN, J., concur.

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

ROSS, J.

This was an action by Culley, as indorsee, against Shelton, as maker, to recover on a negotiable promissory note. The defendant in his answer admits the execution of the note, but alleges it was given without any consideration, and that plaintiff became the owner .thereof after it was due and with notice of the failure of consideration. He further alleges the note was given as evidence in part of what the payee, O. B. Nay, was to receive in the [531]*531event of a successful sale of a block of stock of a certain mining corporation to be organized by defendant and said O. B. Nay and others, and that such stock was not sold, and therefore the note was without consideration. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and verdict and judgment entered for plaintiff for the amount sued for.

Defendant’s assignments of error are directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, it being contended that the evidence showed plaintiff was not a holder of note in due course. The conflict of evidence on that issue was squarely before the trial court; he saw the witnesses and heard them testify; his opportunities for correctly weighing the evidence were better than ours, and we therefore defer to his judgment, as is the rule in this jurisdiction.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

McALISTER, C. J., and LYMAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 P. 229, 25 Ariz. 530, 1923 Ariz. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-culley-ariz-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack