State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp

Arizona Supreme Court

State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp

135 P. 718, 15 Ariz. 24, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 61

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1913

DocketCivil No. 1344

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 135 P. 718 (State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp) 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

State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp, 135 P. 718, 15 Ariz. 24, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 61 (Ark. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANKLIN, C. J.

The object- sought by the writ in this'instance is the review by the court of an order made by the superior court in Navajo county in a case appealed to that court from the court of a justice of the peace. The action in the justice court was for the recovery of money due on a promissory note given for the sum of $26.48. The supreme court has the power to issue the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a lower court only in those cases within its appellate jurisdiction, and where necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction.

[25]*25An action on a promissory note for the recovery of money in a sum not exceeding $200 is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Art. 6, sec. 4, Constitution of Arizona,

The matter presented by this application has heretofore been before this court, and we have determined that it matters not whether the superior court decides that it has jurisdiction when it has not, or whether it erroneously decides some other matter of law; its judgment in causes not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court ,is the judgment of the court of last resort, and concludes the parties. Tyler v. District Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 Pac. 315.

The petition for the writ is accordingly denied.

CUNNINGHAM and ROSS, JJ., concur.

NOTE.—On the question of certiorari in exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, see note in 51 L. R. A. 33.

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

FRANKLIN, C. J.

The object- sought by the writ in this'instance is the review by the court of an order made by the superior court in Navajo county in a case appealed to that court from the court of a justice of the peace. The action in the justice court was for the recovery of money due on a promissory note given for the sum of $26.48. The supreme court has the power to issue the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a lower court only in those cases within its appellate jurisdiction, and where necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction.

[25]*25An action on a promissory note for the recovery of money in a sum not exceeding $200 is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Art. 6, sec. 4, Constitution of Arizona,

The matter presented by this application has heretofore been before this court, and we have determined that it matters not whether the superior court decides that it has jurisdiction when it has not, or whether it erroneously decides some other matter of law; its judgment in causes not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court ,is the judgment of the court of last resort, and concludes the parties. Tyler v. District Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 Pac. 315.

The petition for the writ is accordingly denied.

CUNNINGHAM and ROSS, JJ., concur.

NOTE.—On the question of certiorari in exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, see note in 51 L. R. A. 33.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 P. 718, 15 Ariz. 24, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-wooster-v-sapp-ariz-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack