Clark v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 16 April 1898
• Docket Number: Civil 586
• Citation: 52 P. 985,5 Ariz. 349
• Parties: WILLIAM CLARK, Defendant and Plaintiff in Error, v. ROBERT E. MORRISON, Plaintiff and Defendant in Error
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

52 P. 985

5 Ariz. 349

WILLIAM CLARK, Defendant and Plaintiff in Error, v. ROBERT E. MORRISON, Plaintiff and Defendant in Error

Civil No. 586

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 16, 1898

ERROR to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in and for the County of Yavapai. John J. Hawkins, Judge.

Affirmed.

E. M Sanford, for Plaintiff in Error.

This court will take judicial notice of its officers and attorneys. Alderman v. Bell, 9 Cal. 315; Masterson v. Le Claire, 4 Minn. 108.

So it ought to be presumed that Vanatta & Cunningham are not licensed attorneys in Arizona. The paper called an answer being a pleading, not signed by the party, nor by an attorney licensed to practice in Arizona, is not tantamount to an appearance.

J. E Morrison, for Defendant in Error.

Davis, J. Street, C. J., Sloan, J., and Doan, J., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion. DAVIS J.--The defendant in error brought an action in the court below against William Clark and H. J. Sisty, co-partners, under the firm name and style of Clark & Sisty, to recover the sum of $ 1,006.13 for materials furnished and labor done in and upon two certain mining claims,--the Shelton and the Eureka,--situate in the Walker Mining District, Yavapai County, Arizona, and to enforce a lien therefor against said mining properties. The complaint alleges the said copartners to have been the owners and in the possession of said mining claims at the time of the improvements thereon, and avers that they are residents of the state of Colorado. The account consists of various items of labor alleged to have been performed, and materials to have been furnished, by different persons upon said mines and mining property, at the special instance and request of the said Clark & Sisty, and duly assigned to the defendant in error, by whom, the complaint avers, they were attested, filed, and recorded in compliance with the lien statute. Upon the filing of the complaint, summons was issued, and the same appears to have been served upon William Clark, personally, on May 19, 1896, in El Paso County, Colorado. No service was ever had upon H. J. Sisty. On June 23, 1896, what purports to be the separate answer of William Clark was filed in the case, signed by Vanatta & Cunningham, as his attorneys, and there is no contention that it was not done by his authority. The answering defendant admits that at the dates mentioned in the complaint he and his co-defendant were the owners of said mining claims; admits that there is due to the plaintiff upon the causes of action set forth in the complaint the sum of $ 391.50, but no more; and "prays that plaintiff be allowed a judgment in the sum of $ 391.50, and his reasonable costs." At the trial in the court below neither of the defendants appeared in person or by counsel. Evidence was introduced in the plaintiff's behalf, and the court found the allegations of the complaint to be true. A judgment was rendered against the defendant William Clark for the full amount claimed by ...