Bank of Arizona v. Superior Court of Yavapai County
Decision Date | 13 April 1926 |
Docket Number | Civil 2509 |
Citation | 245 P. 366,30 Ariz. 72 |
Parties | BANK OF ARIZONA, a Corporation, GRANVILLE FAIN and W. WILKINS, Copartners Doing Business Under the Name and Style of FAIN & WILKINS, Relators, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, and DUDLEY W. WINDES, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Acting as Judge of the Superior Court of Yavapai County, State of Arizona, Respondents |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding for Writ of Prohibition.
Alternative writ granted. Upon hearing to determine whether writ should be made absolute, writ quashed.
Messrs Favour & Baker and Messrs. O'Sullivan & Morgan, for Relators.
Messrs Armstrong, Lewis & Kramer, for Respondents.
This is an original proceeding for a writ of prohibition directed to the Honorable DUDLEY W. WINDES, Judge of the superior court of Maricopa county, while presiding over the superior court of Yavapai county in the trial of an action numbered 9900, entitled "Diamond and a Half Land & Cattle Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Bank of Arizona, a Corporation, Granville Fain and W. Wilkins, copartners, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Fain & Wilkins, Defendants."
It appears that Charles P. Mullen and Guy P. Schultz, stock growers, with cattle and ranges and lands situate in Yavapai county, Arizona, alleged to be worth to exceed $ 200,000, were largely indebted to the Bank of Arizona; such indebtedness being represented in part by a partially satisfied mortgage lien judgment and by a mortgage against and upon the debtors' cow outfit and ranges, including patented lands, and leases of state lands.
On the fifteenth day of November, 1922, the bank, as first party, Granville Fain and William Wilkins, as second parties, and Charles P. Mullen and Guy P. Schultz, as third parties, entered into an agreement concerning such indebtedness and property, all of said covenants and agreements being mutual, in effect as follows: The bank agreed to sell and Fain and Wilkins agreed to buy the debt owing the bank by Mullen and Schultz, for the consideration of $ 125,000, plus costs of an action of foreclosure and receivership amounting to $ 3,804.76, and to assign the unsatisfied judgment and mortgage to Fain & Wilkins, retaining, however, judgment and mortgage as security for the payment of the consideration above stated and until it was paid. In said agreement Fain & Wilkins optioned said unsatisfied judgment and mortgage to the judgment debtors, Mullen and Schultz, for $ 125,000, plus expenses of foreclosure and receivership, with interest thereon at six per cent and for operating expenses of outfit, with interest on latter amounts at eight per cent due credit to be given Mullen and Schultz for any sales of livestock made during the term of three years said option was to run. In said agreement Mullen and Schultz appointed and designated Fain & Wilkins as their attorneys in fact, for them, and in their name, place, and stead to manage, run, operate and control the cow outfit and real estate; it being recited that such appointment was coupled with an interest and irrevocable. The following paragraphs of the agreement we set out in full:
The other provisions of the contract are unnecessary for the purposes of this case, and we do not set them out.
Some time before April, 1925, the Diamond and a Half Land & Cattle Company, a corporation was organized for the purpose of taking over, and did take over, the Mullen and Schultz interest in the cow outfit and lands covered by said agreement, and, as the successor of Mullen and Schultz instituted said action numbered 9900, charging the defendants therein with several breaches of the contract, bad faith in refusing to aid Mullen and Schultz to work out of their financial difficulties, or to co-operate with them in carrying out the spirit of the agreement, to the plaintiff's damage in the sum of $ 100,000. In the action, the appointment of a receiver was asked for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hislop v. Rodgers
... ... , a Municipal Corporation of the State of Arizona, E. C. MOORE, as Chief of Police of Said ... G. A. RODGERS, as Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, ... tribunal. Bank of Arizona v. Superior ... Court, 30 Ariz ... ...
-
Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dept. Stores of Ariz., Inc.
...to grant an injunction at any stage of the case in which application for the injunction is made. Bank of Arizona v. Superior Court of Yavapia County, 30 Ariz. 72, 245 P. 366 (1926); Davies v. Johnson, 22 Ariz. 63, 193 P. 1019 (1920). We, therefore, reject the defendants' claim that this ord......
-
Signs v. Merziotis
...v. Super City Dep't Stores of Ariz., Inc., 4 Ariz. App. 553, 555, 422 P.2d 184, 186 (1967) (citing Bank of Ariz. v. Superior Court of Yavapai Cnty., 30 Ariz. 72, 81, 245 P. 366, 369 (1926), and Davies v. Johnson, 22 Ariz. 63, 64, 193 P. 1019, 1019 (1920)). Because this type of non-final, in......
-
City of Tucson v. Garrett
...writ be resorted to simply to circumvent ordinary appeal process. Westerlund v. Croaff, 68 Ariz. 36, 198 P.2d 842; Bank of Arizona v. Superior Court, 30 Ariz. 72, 245 P. 366. It is my view that in the borderline cases, such as this, where the ultimate answer is in grave doubt, we should per......