Thomas v. Speese

132 P. 1137, 14 Ariz. 556, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 109
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJune 6, 1913
DocketCivil No. 1280
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 132 P. 1137 (Thomas v. Speese) 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
Thomas v. Speese, 132 P. 1137, 14 Ariz. 556, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 109 (Ark. 1913).

Opinion

FRANKLIN, C. J.

In all civil cases other than those where the appellant is not required to give bond on appeal the appeal is taken by the appellant giving notice of appeal in open court, which shall be noted on the docket and entered of record and within twenty days after giving such notice by filing with the clerk of the court an appeal bond. Par. 1496, Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, as amended, chapter 21, First Legislature, First Session 1912. Giving the notice of appeal, and in cases where a bond on appeal is required filing the appeal bond, are jurisdictional. In this case the bond on appeal was filed, but the record fails to show that appellant gave the statutory notice of appeal. This is fatal, and this court has no jurisdiction of the case but to dismiss the appeal.

It may not be inappropriate to state that the manner of presenting the record to this court for review does not meet the requirements of the law and the rules of this court. The assignments of error are too general and indefinite to be considered ; the appellant has prepared no abstract of the record, and in other particulars the manner of presenting the merits of the ease for review are exceedingly informal.

Attorneys who practice in this court must familiarize themselves with the statutory provisions and rules governing appeals and substantially comply with the appellate procedure. This should be done to the end that this court may be enabled to properly consider the merits of the eases presented, and also in justice to their clients who intrust to them their rights in this respect.

Appeal dismissed.

CUNNINGHAM and ROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Leach v. Cox
391 P.2d 649 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1964)
Lount v. Strouss
162 P.2d 430 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1945)
Town of Flagstaff v. Gomez
202 P. 401 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1921)
Reed v. Chambers
201 P. 98 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1921)
Copper State Mining Co. v. Wills
178 P. 30 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1919)
Jackson v. Lebanon Reservoir & Ditch Co.
171 P. 997 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1918)
Rivers v. State
69 So. 387 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Chandler v. State
68 So. 536 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Branch v. State
136 P. 628 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 P. 1137, 14 Ariz. 556, 1913 Ariz. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-speese-ariz-1913.