Harrison v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 18 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2262 |
| Citation | 235 P. 158,28 Ariz. 75 |
| Parties | McCORD HARRISON, Appellant, v. GEORGE W. P. HUNT, WAYNE HUBBS and E. W. SAMUELS, as Members of and Constituting the Board of Directors of State Institutions of the State of Arizona, and GEORGE W. P. HUNT, WAYNE HUBBS and E. W. SAMUELS, individually; W. T. WEBB, HOMER R. WOOD and DUANE BIRD, as Members of and Constituting the State Fair Commission of the State of Arizona, JOSEPH P. DILLON, Secretary of the State Fair Commission, and W. T. WEBB, HOMER R. WOOD, DUANE BIRD and JOSEPH P. DILLON, Individually, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Dudley W. Windes, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Mr. J C. Niles and Mr. Charles Woolf, for Appellant.
Mr Earl Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. E. S. Clark Mr. E. W. Lewis, Mr. G. W. Shute, Mr. J. E. Noble, Mr. Herman Lewkowitz, Mr. A. Henderson Stockton, Mr. Thomas P. Walton Mr. Joseph M. Holub, Mr. Thomas A. Flynn and Mr. Duane Bird, for W. T. Webb, Homer R. Wood, Duane Bird and Joseph P. Dillon, Individually and as Members and Secretary of the State Fair Commission.
McCord Harrison, plaintiff herein, filed action August 28, 1923 against the defendants, individually and as members of the State Fair Commission, alleging substantially that they were contemplating and threatening to permit the use of the State Fair Grounds during part of the year 1923 for the purpose of race-track betting, for carrying on a banking or percentage game commonly known as "pari mutuels" or "French Pool," and running or causing to be run, in connection therewith, horse-races for the purpose of deciding the bets and wagers of a pool held abiding the event of the race. Plaintiff contended that these acts were all forbidden by the provisions of chapter 10, title 9, of the Penal Code of 1913, as amended (Laws 1917, c. 79, and Laws 1919, Appendix, p. 12); that there was no adequate remedy except injunctive relief to prevent such action; and asking that defendants be enjoined from permitting the State Fair Grounds to be used for carrying on any banking, percentage, or other game of chance. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint, and plaintiff filed a first and second amended complaint, the latter on October 8, 1923; the allegation being made therein that it was the intention of defendant to permit the use of the State Fair Grounds for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst
...the opinion of his court there is not now pending for determination an actual controversy, the cross-appeal is dismissed. Harrison v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 235 P. 158; Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Ariz. 222, 179 P. The Act of 1948. The significant facts alleged in the complaint and admit......
-
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II
...State ex rel. Sullivan v. Patterson, 64 Ariz. 40, 165 P.2d 309; State ex rel. Brawner v. Kerby, 32 Ariz. 118, 256 P. 113; Harrison v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 235 P. 158; Mesa Mail Pub. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 26 Ariz. 521, 227 P. 572; Francis Construction Co. v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 429......
-
J. R. Francis Const. Co. v. Pima County
...will not decide moot questions or abstract propositions. Mesa Mail Publishing Co. v. Board of Supervisors, supra; Harrison v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 77, 235 P. 158 [1925]; State ex rel. Brawner v. Kerby, 32 Ariz. 118, 119, 256 P. 113 [1927]; Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst, 79 Ariz. 403, 406......
-
Marshall v. Dietrich
... ... sought injunctive relief had already been completed, and ... under the rule laid down by us in Harrison v ... Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 235 P. 158, the appeal should be ... dismissed ... While ... it is true the paving has already been completed ... ...