Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, Health and Accident Association, Civil 3775
Decision Date | 14 December 1936 |
Docket Number | Civil 3775 |
Citation | 63 P.2d 203,48 Ariz. 521 |
Parties | BENJAMIN R. FERRELL, Appellant v. MUTUAL BENEFIT, HEALTH AND ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. J. C. Niles, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr Erwin H. Karz and Mr. Charlie W. Clark, for Appellant.
Mr. G W. Shute, for Appellee.
This is the second time this case has reached this court. It is an action by plaintiff Ferrell to recover health benefits upon an insurance policy. The first trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, and from such judgment there was an appeal teken. Our opinion, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial, was rendered December 4, 1933, and may be found at 42 Ariz. 477, 27 P.2d 519. The mandate was issued January 23, 1934. The plaintiff took no action and made no request to have the case set down for new trial but on December 14, 1934, the defendant filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reason the complaint failed to state a cause of action. This motion was passed from time to time until on January 3, 1936, when it was granted. From the order granting such motion, the plaintiff has appealed.
It is not the province or duty of this court to search the record for error. We have adopted certain rules to guide parties in perfecting their appeals and in presenting the reasons therefor. These rules require that an appellant shall among other things point out to the court, definitely and clearly by assignment, the errors of which he complains. An examination of appellant's brief in this case fails to disclose by assignment what error, if any, was committed by the trial court. His effort in that regard is entirely inadequate. The following are his so-called assignments:
We have repeatedly decided that assignments like these do not conform with our rules. One of the more recent cases so diciding, and in that case we collate the earlier decisions, is Thornburg...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark, 2
...liquidated to Clark. We will not search the record to find support for SMHS' general allegation. Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, Health and Accident Association, 48 Ariz. 521, 63 P.2d 203 (1936). SMHS also fails to explain how the judgment of $181,736.17 includes interest so that the 10% per ann......
-
Tidwell v. Riggs
...American Coarse Gold Corp. v. Young, 46 Ariz. 511, 52 P.2d 1181; Keefe v. Jacobo, 47 Ariz. 162, 54 P.2d 270; Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, H. & A. Ass'n, 48 Ariz. 521, 63 P.2d 203; Bender v. Bender, 49 Ariz. 72, 64 P.2d 818; City of Phoenix v. Parker, 49 Ariz. 382, 67 P.2d 226; Sovereign Camp,......
-
Schaefer v. Duhame
... ... the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior ... Courts, being ... 952, and Middleton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., ... 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 721 ... From ... this court's case of Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, ... Health & Accident Ass'n, ... ...
-
Quealy Land Co. v. George
... ... loan association. Charles George acted as the agent for Mrs ... ...