Batterton v. Pima County
Decision Date | 13 November 1928 |
Docket Number | Civil 2718 |
Parties | HARRY R. BATTERTON, OSCAR C. COLE, STEVE ROEMER, J. G. COMPTON, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, and NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellants, v. PIMA COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions.
Messrs Kingan & Darnell, Mr. John L. Van Buskirk, Mrs. Dorothy Sargent, Mr. J. L. B. Alexander, Mr. Robert McMurchie and Messrs. Stockton & Perry, for Appellants.
Mr Louis R. Kempf, County Attorney, and Mr. Milton M. Cohan Assistant County Attorney (Messrs. Curley & Pattee, of Counsel), for Appellee.
The Pima county courthouse was erected in the year 1882, when the population of that county was only about twenty per cent of what it is now. As a natural result of the passage of years and the growth of population the county business has greatly outgrown the accommodations provided and the building itself has deteriorated to such an extent that it is and has been for years universally admitted that it was only a question of time as to when it would be imperative that a larger and better courthouse and jail be erected.
The present courthouse is situated on the south half of block 192 in the city of Tucson, and, some years ago, realizing the impending necessity for a new building, and that the land owned at that time would be inadequate for the required structure, the then board of supervisors purchased a strip of ground in the same block immediately north of the property owned by the county. In 1926 Steve Roemer, Oscar C. Cole and J. G. Compton, hereinafter called the supervisors, composed the board of supervisors of Pima county. On June 7th of that year one R. G. Brady, a realtor of Tucson, appeared before the board and submitted in writing an offer to sell the county all that part of block 192 not then owned by it for $58,000, some $7,000 to be paid by the assumption of various mortgages and the balance in cash. This property belonged to a number of persons, from all of whom Brady had secured options or contracts of purchase. In the offer Brady called attention to the impending need for a new courthouse and jail, and the importance of securing the balance of block 192 for that purpose before the realty values were raised. The supervisors, having considered the matter, appointed appraisers in conformity with the statute governing the acquiring of land for jail purposes, and also made inquiries of various prominent citizens as to the advisability of the purchase. The appraisers fixed the value of the property at $60,000, and the supervisors on June 11th accepted Brady's offer, a warrant was drawn for the purchase price, deeds taken from the different persons owning the property and recorded, and the transaction concluded.
On the 1st of January, 1927, a new board of supervisors took office. There had been considerable criticism in Tucson of the purchase above set forth, and the new board caused this action to be commenced in the superior court. Pima county in its official capacity was plaintiff, and there were some twenty-one defendants, who may be divided into several groups. The first group consists of the three supervisors hereinbefore named. The second group was composed of the original owners of the property, whom we shall hereafter call the owners. The third group was composed of the sureties on the bonds of the supervisors and their clerk, whom we shall hereafter call the sureties. The fourth group consisted of Harry R. Batterton, the clerk of the board of supervisors during the transaction involved herein, Richard G. Brady, the realtor who negotiated the deal, Frank B. Lopez, who was instrumental in securing the various options and contracts of purchase from the owners, and Ben B. Mathews and Ralph W. Bilby, who, it is claimed by plaintiff, were the attorneys for Brady, Lopez and Batterton in the transactions. We shall hereafter call this group the dealers. There were three other parties, but we need not consider them on this appeal.
After setting up the necessary formal matters and the ownership of the property involved, the complaint proceeds as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Coleman, Civil 4634
... ... APPEAL ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ... Apache. Wm. G. Hall, Judge ... Judgment reversed and remanded with ... As was pointed out ... by this court in the case of Avery v. Pima ... County , 7 Ariz. 26, 60 P. 702, paragraph 383, R. S. A ... 1887, as amended by Art. 34, Acts ... 279 P. 257; Fullen v. Calhoun , [63 Ariz ... 57] 39 Ariz. 40, 3 P.2d 786; Batterton v. Pima ... County , 34 Ariz. 347, 271 P. 720; American-La France ... & Foamite Corp. v ... ...
-
City of Phoenix v. Kidd
...never ascertain at the time he furnished them whether the contract was legal or not. We hold, therefore, following the reasoning of the Batterton that surpluses from any particular budgeted fund cannot be used to pay liabilities which should be charged to another budgeted fund for the curre......
-
Bradstreet v. Bradstreet
... ... APPEAL ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ... Maricopa. J. E. Jones, Judge. Judgment affirmed ... Messrs ... Baxter & ... ...
-
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Wainscott
... ... APPEAL ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ... Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed ... Messrs ... Baker & ... expenditure involved was not authorized by law ... Batterton v. Pima County, 34 Ariz. 347, 271 ... P. 720; Avery v. Pima County, 7 Ariz. 26, ... 60 P. 702; ... ...