Church v. Meredith, 6331
| Decision Date | 26 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 6331,6331 |
| Citation | 83 Ariz. 377,321 P.2d 1035 |
| Parties | Wade CHURCH and L. D. Klemmedson, Appellants, v. R. E. MEREDITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Wade Church, Phoenix, for appellants.
Moore & Moore, Phoenix, for appellee.
Appellee brought one suit against appellant, Wade Church, and another suit against appellant L. D. Klemmedson. The suits were consolidated for trial and both suits are before us on appeal as a consolidated case from a judgment against each appellant in the sum of $1,000 plus $250 attorney's fees.
The complaints were identical, except as to the promissory note involved, and alleged: the execution of a promissory note payable to the order of appellee by each appellant; that although often requested, each appellant failed and refused to pay the note or interest thereon; and a prayer for judgment in the sum of $1,000, with interest, plus $250 as reasonable attorney's fees.
The answers were identical and each admitted the execution of the promissory note. However, as an affirmative defense it was alleged that no consideration was ever given for the notes as all moneys were retained and used solely for the benefit of appellee, as general agent of the Co-op Life, Health, and Accident Insurance Association, an Arizona corporation, and Accident Insurance Association, an Arizona corporation, now known as the Sun Life Insurance Company; that said moneys were retained by appellee and were never turned over to the insurance company of which appellee was general agent and is now an officer; and that each appellant was nothing more than an accommodation maker for the aforesaid insurance company.
Appellants set forth four assignments of error but admit the only issue before this court is whether there was consideration for the notes. Many authorities are cited for the abstract proposition of law that failure of consideration is a defense and that where there is error affecting a substantial right a case should be reversed. Appellants failed to point out wherein the evidence is deficient to support the judgments. We have, nevertheless, carefully scrutinized the evidence and find no material conflict therein which can be of any solace to appellants. The evidence clearly established that appellee loaned $1,000 to each appellant, evidenced by his personal checks payable to the order of appellants, and by them endorsed and turned over to the insurance company. It was also clearly established that the insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Reliable Transp. Co.
...the trial court's judgment if the evidence conflicts or if substantial evidence supports its judgment.' See also, Church v. Meredith, 1958, 83 Ariz. 377, 378, 321 P.2d 1035; Torosian v. Paulos, 1957, 82 Ariz. 304, 310, 313 P.2d 382; Anderson v. Artesia Inv. Co., 1948, 66 Ariz. 335, 338, 188......
-
Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. v. Kerwin
...to support the judgment of the lower court it will be sustained. Sturges v. Tongeland, 83 Ariz. 148, 317 P.2d 941; Church v. Meredith, 83 Ariz. 377, 321 P.2d 1035; Kauffroath v. Wilbur, 66 Ariz. 152, 185 P.2d 522; Viliborghi v. Prescott School Dist. No. 1, 55 Ariz. 230, 100 P.2d '* * * No f......
-
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery
...evidence to support it. Smith v. Smith, 89 Ariz. 84, 358 P.2d 183; Winterton v. Lannon, 85 Ariz. 21, 330 P.2d 987; Church v. Meredith, 83 Ariz. 377, 321 P.2d 1035. It is our steadfast rule that we will not disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court based upon conflicting evidence,......
-
Bohmfalk v. Vaughan
...and the judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it. Winterton v. Lannon, supra; Church v. Meredith, 83 Ariz. 377, 321 P.2d 1035. Here the trial judge and the jury were faced with the problem of determining the credibility of the plaintiff and the defe......