Barrett v. Hiney
| Decision Date | 29 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7479,7479 |
| Citation | 94 Ariz. 133,382 P.2d 240 |
| Parties | Don J. BARRETT, Appellant, v. William M. HINEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Favour & Quail, Prescott, for appellant.
Appellant was plaintiff in a suit to collect a real estate commission. The trial court held that on most of the issues the evidence supported the plaintiff's position but that judgment should be entered for the defendant on the ground that there was a variance in the terms of payment and that these terms did not meet the listing contract. Neither waiver nor estoppel were applicable to the facts in the case.
Appellant has made numerous assignments of error challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief within the time prescribed by the rules, and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S., pursuant to motion of appellant. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume the failure to file an answering brief is confession of reversible error on the part of appellee. Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952; Tom v. Baca, 93, Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Garza v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc.
-
Bugh v. Bugh, 1
...issues are raised, the failure of an appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error. Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Turf Irrigation Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 24 Ariz.App. 537, 540 P.2d 156 (1975); ......
-
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan
...debatable. Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 402 P.2d 573 (1965); Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963); Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952 (1962); State v. Sanders, 85 Ariz. 217, 335 P.2d 616 (1959). This court ha......
-
Turf Irrigation and Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
...issues are raised, the failure of an appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error. Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. MacLeod, 17 Ariz.App. 449, 498 P.2d 523 (1972); Meinhard-Commercial Corporation v. ......