Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Commission, 4849

Decision Date11 July 1947
Docket Number4849
Citation182 P.2d 937,66 Ariz. 75
PartiesCONSOLIDATED STAGE CO. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION et al
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Howard C. Speakman Judge.

Suit by Consolidated Stage Company against the Corporation Commission of the State of Arizona and Amos A. Betts and others, members of the Corporation Commission of the State of Arizona, to review orders of the Corporation Commission canceling the certificate of convenience and necessity issued to plaintiff to operate as a common carrier of passengers and express between Globe, Miami, and Globe, and Copper Hill serving Claypool, Midland City, and lower Miami, and issuing such a certificate to others to operate such service in the vicinity. From a decision upholding Corporation Commission's orders, the plaintiff appeals. On motion to strike the abstract of record and dismiss the appeal.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.

Struckmeyer & Struckmeyer and Claude M. Spriggs, all of Phoenix, for appellant.

John L Sullivan, Atty. Gen. (Hill, Robert & Hill, and Darrell R Parker, all of Phoenix, of counsel), for appellees.

Stanford Chief Justice. LaPrade and Udall, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Stanford, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, upholding an order and ruling of the Corporation Commission of Arizona in the cancellation of the certificate of convenience and necessity issued the Consolidated Stage Company, and cancellation of the renewal of same, to operate as a common carrier for the transportation of passengers and express between Globe, Miami, and Globe and Copper Hill serving Claypool, Midland City and lower Miami. Also an appeal from the issuance to one B. Homer and S. B. Fitt to operate such service in the vicinity aforesaid.

There was filed in this court in this cause a motion to strike the abstract of record and dismiss the appeal. We consider the motion to dismiss the appeal vital, and, therefore, will give it our attention. The basis for the motion is that the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the orders of the Corporation Commission was dated July 10, 1945, and filed with the clerk of the Superior Court on July 16, 1945. Notice of appeal was filed with said court on July 6, 1945, ten days prior to the filing of judgment.

The chronological order of the record in this case pertaining to this subject down to the time of the filing of the judgment is as follows:

"June 21, 1945 -- 'Order for Judgment for defendants affirming decision of the Corporation Commission made January 22, 1945, and being #13340.'

"June 27, 1945 -- 'Plaintiff presents to court, findings of fact and conclusions of law and written Judgment for approval.'

"July 6, 1945 -- 'Filed Notice of Appeal.'

"July 6, 1945 -- 'Filed Credit Memo $ 250.00.'

"July 7, 1945 -- 'Mailed copies of Notice of Appeal to Attorney General and Hill, Robert & Hill.'

"July 10, 1945 -- 'Order approving Judgment, findings of fact and conclusions of law.'

"July 14, 1945 -- 'Filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.'

"July 16, 1945 -- 'Filed and entered Judgment.'"

Sec. 21-1230, A.C.A.1939 on the subject of "Entry of judgment" reads:

"Judgment shall be entered when the court so directs. When the direction is that a party recover only money or costs, or that there be no recovery, the clerk shall enter judgment forthwith upon receipt by him of the direction, but when the direction is for other relief, the judge shall first promptly settle and approve the form of judgment. In cases of judgments for money or costs only, or that there be no recovery, the notation thereof in the civil docket, as provided by Rule 79(a) (§ 21-1910) constitutes the entry of such judgment, and in cases granting any other relief, filing with the clerk of a form of judgment settled and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Public Service Co. of N. M. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1967
    ...(1925); Associates Discount Corp. v. DeVilliers, supra; Johnson v. Johnson, supra; Miller v. Doe, supra; Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Comm'n., 66 Ariz. 75, 182 P.2d 937 (1947); In Re Lopus' Estate, 12 Cal.2d 651, 86 P.2d 818 (1939); Leach v. Manhart, 108 Colo. 71, 113 P.2d 1002 It ......
  • Arizona Corp. Com'n v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1957
    ...and under the provisions of Rule 58(a), Rules Civil Procedure, a formal written judgment was required. Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Commission, 66 Ariz. 75, 182 P.2d 937. It is fundamental that appeal is a matter of statutory privilege rather than a right. No one has a natural righ......
  • Glenn v. Imperial Trust
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1977
    ...168 (1960). Whereas, the premature filing of a notice of appeal will not work to perfect an appeal, Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Commission, 66 Ariz. 75, 182 P.2d 937 (1947), the question of whether the premature filing of a cost bond to perfect an appeal is one of first impression......
  • Seitz v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1969
    ...order had not yet been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court, and the appeal therefor was premature. Consolidated Stage Co. v. Corporation Commission, 66 Ariz. 75, 182 P.2d 937. It is not necessary for us to determine whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction at the time of the Janua......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT