Hershey v. Banta
Decision Date | 12 February 1940 |
Docket Number | Civil 4124 |
Parties | H. B. HERSHEY, Liquidating Receiver for MISSISSIPPI VALLEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. E. H. BANTA, M. J. DOUGHERTY, ALLAN D. SANFORD, A. O. PELSUE, and REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, a Corporation, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. E. G. Frazier, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs Townsend, Jenckes & Wildman, of Phoenix, Arizona, and Mr. J D. Smith and Mr. Fred C. Knollenberg, of El Paso, Texas, for Appellants.
Messrs Silverthorne & Silverthorne, for Appellees.
H. B. Hershey, as liquidating receiver for the Mississippi Valley Life Insurance Company, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit in the superior court of Maricopa county, in action No. 45161-5, against E. H. Banta, M. J. Dougherty, Allan D. Sanford, A. O. Pelsue, and Republic Life Insurance Company of Dallas, Texas, a corporation, hereinafter called defendants, to set aside a judgment rendered in case No. 37332 in the same court, entitled M. J. Dougherty v. Mississippi Vally Life Insurance Company. At the same time he filed another action, being No. 45160-5, against the Republic Life Insurance Company, E. H. Banta, A. O. Pelsue, J. G. Vaughan, Norman W. Freestone, Dora Freestone, Albert Freestone and W. G. Proctor, seeking to quiet the title of plaintiff to certain lands situate in Maricopa county, Arizona.
Demurrers to the complaints in each case were filed. On April 22, 1938, upon motion of defendants, the two suits thus brought were, over the objection of plaintiff, ordered consolidated, under the provisions of section 3804, Revised Code of 1928, which reads as follows:
The cases were than argued as consolidated, and the general demurrers to the complaints were finally sustained. Plaintiff failing to amend, judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, dismissing the actions, whereupon appeals were taken in each of the cases to this court.
The facts necessary for a determination of both appeals may be stated as follows: On June 11, 1932, M. J. Dougherty filed suit No. 37332, supra, against the Mississippi Valley Life Insurance Company, hereinafter called the company, of a claim alleged to be due him (a) as personal attorney's fees in the sum of $1,072.16, (b) on an assigned claim of James A. Walsh for $541.20, and (c) on an assigned claim of George H. Moore and William M. Fitch for $1,100. Application was made for the appointment of a receiver of the company to take charge of certain real estate belonging to it and situate in Maricopa county, the application setting up that the company was insolvent; that its property outside of Arizona was in the hands of receivers appointed in other states, and that the real estate above referred to was the only property to which its creditors in Arizona might look for satisfaction of their judgments. A citation was issued to the company, requiring it to appear on June 20, 1932, to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed, and it was ordered that service of the complaint, the affidavit in support thereof, the motion for a receiver, and the order to show cause, be served by registered mail. On June 27th an order was made reciting as follows:
"The court having heretofore upon the verified complaint and affidavit of the plaintiff, made and issued an order requiring the above named defendant to appear and show cause before this court in the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at 9:30 o'clock, A.M., on the 20th day of June, 1932, and the said defendant, appearing herein by Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith and Rosenfeld, as attorneys for Alvin S. Keys, the duly appointed receiver for said defendant, having applied for and having been granted a continuance until 9:30 A.M. on this date, and the plaintiff appearing in person and by his attorney, James A. Walsh, and the defendant appearing by its attorneys, Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith and Rosenfeld, as attorneys for Alvin A. Keys, the duly appointed receiver for said defendant, this matter came on regularly for hearing upon said verified complaint, said plaintiff's affidavit and the representation and statements of the parties and said attorneys; and it appearing to the court that due and proper notice of the time and place of this hearing has been in due and proper time served upon said defendant and that said defendant is represented by its attorneys,... "
The order further recited that the circuit court of Madison county, Illinois, had previously entered an order providing for the liquidation of the company, and appointing a receiver to take charge of its business, and that it was necessary that a receiver be appointed in Arizona for the property of the company within this state, and ordered as follows:
The receiver duly qualified and took possession of the real estate. On August 22, 1932, judgment was rendered in favor of Dougherty against the company. This judgment recited as follows:
-- and judgment was rendered accordingly for the amount prayed for. On the same day, E. H. Banta filed in the superior court a petition for leave to file a suit to quiet title against Pelsue, the receiver appointed by the court, which petition was granted, and immediately suit No. 37799 B-1 was filed by Banta against Pelsue as receiver, seeking to quiet title to the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of section 19, Township 1 North, Range 6 East, G. & S. R. Base and Meridian. The receiver answered, admitting that he claimed title as such receiver to the property above mentioned, but making no further defense. The case was then heard by the court, witnesses being sworn and documentary evidence introduced, and voluminous findings were made tracing the title of the land in question from the company to plaintiff, and rendering judgment quieting the title to the premises in fee simple in plaintiff Banta. All these proceedings were on August 22, 1932. Dougherty much later acknowledged satisfaction of his judgment, which was duly filed March 27, 1937.
It is the position of the defendants that the real purpose of the present suit and its companion No....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shinn v. Ariz. Bd. of Exec. Clemency
...v. Brady , 38 Ariz. 337, 342–43, 300 P. 177 (1931) ; Hill v. Favour , 52 Ariz. 561, 573–74, 84 P.2d 575 (1938) ; Hershey v. Banta , 55 Ariz. 93, 100, 99 P.2d 81 (1940) ; Hughes v. Indus. Comm'n , 69 Ariz. 193, 197, 211 P.2d 463 (1949) ; Walker , 113 Ariz. at 235, 550 P.2d at 232 ; In re. Ad......
-
Marin v. Wilmot Self-Storage, LLC
...cases in the same court . . . without the necessity of the record of such previous suits being offered in evidence." Hershey v. Banta, 55 Ariz. 93, 99, 99 P.2d 81, 84 (1940); see also State v. Rushing, 156 Ariz. 1, 4, 749 P.2d 910, 913 (1988) (proper for court to take judicial notice of its......
-
Shinn v. Ariz. Bd. of Exec. Clemency
...ago in Arizona. See, e.g., Lisitzky v. Brady, 38 Ariz. 337, 342-43 (1931); Hill v. Favour, 52 Ariz. 561, 573-74 (1938); Hershey v. Banta, 55 Ariz. 93, 100 (1940); Hughes v. Indus. Comm'n, 69 Ariz. 193, 197 (1949); Walker, 113 Ariz. at 235; In re. Adoption of Hadrath, 121 Ariz. 606, 608 (197......
-
Visco v. First Nat. Bank of Ariz.
...notice of the proceedings charged in the complaint. Stewart v. Phoenix National Bank, 49 Ariz. 34, 64 P.2d 101 (1937); Hershey v. Banta, 55 Ariz. 93, 99 P.2d 81 (1940). None of the proceedings charged in the complaint terminated on its merits, except Cause No. 130907, and the trial court de......