Charouleau v. Shields & Price

• Decision Date: 07 May 1904
• Docket Number: Civil 851
• Citation: 76 P. 821,9 Ariz. 73
• Parties: PEDRO CHAROULEAU and ANGELINA CHAROULEAU, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SHIELDS & PRICE, Defendants and Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

76 P. 821

9 Ariz. 73

PEDRO CHAROULEAU and ANGELINA CHAROULEAU, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SHIELDS & PRICE, Defendants and Appellees

Civil No. 851

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 7, 1904

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Pinal. Fletcher M. Doan Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

W. H Griffin, and Owen T. Rouse, for Appellants.

J. E O'Connor, for Appellees.

OPINION

DAVIS J.

On the twelfth day of July, 1902, Pedro Charouleau and Angelina Charouleau brought an action in the district court of Pinal County against Frank Shields and W. Y. Price, copartners under the firm name of Shields & Price, to recover an alleged indebtedness of four hundred and forty dollars, claimed to be due from the said firm upon a contract for the rent of the plaintiffs' farm from June 27, 1901, to June 27, 1902. The defendants answered, denying such contract and indebtedness, and the trial of the case resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the cause is presented to us for review on appeal.

There is objection made by counsel for appellees to the consideration of the assignment of errors contained in the brief of appellants on the ground that the same does not conform to the requirements of the statute and the rules of the court. The objection is well founded, as the errors assigned are all general and indefinite. The statute requires that the brief of the appellant "must plainly state the errors complained of by him, and refer to the page or pages of the record wherein the error is alleged by him to exist. It shall also contain a brief statement of so much of the evidence in the case as is relevant to the error alleged, and a citation of the authorities relied on to support the allegation of error." Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, par. 1586. Rule 7 of this court, which relates to assignments of error, contains these provisions: --

"I. All assignments of errors must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon, and the particular ruling complained of. If the particular ruling complained of has been embodied in a motion for a new trial with other rulings, or in any motion, or in a bill of exceptions, or in a statement of facts, or otherwise in the record, it must nevertheless be referred to in the assignment of errors, or it will be deemed to be waived.

"II. If the assignment of error be, that the court overruled a motion for a new trial, and the motion is based upon more than one ground, the same will not be considered as distinct and specific by this court, unless each ground is separately and distinctly stated in the assignment of errors.

"III. An objection to the ruling or action of the court below, will be deemed waived in this court, unless it has been assigned as error, in the manner above provided.

"IV. If the assignment of error be to the giving of instructions to the jury by the lower court, the appellant must state wherein the instruction complained of is erroneous in its statement of the law applicable to the case or to any particular fact or facts thereof.

"V. If the refusal to give an instruction asked for by the appellant in the court below, be assigned as error, the assignment must state the...