Jackson v. Pacific Inv. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7259,7259 |
| Citation | 94 Ariz. 416,385 P.2d 708 |
| Parties | Clarence O. JACKSON and Billie Jackson, husband and wife, Appellants, v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bayham & Huffsteter, Phoenix, for appellants.
Paul H. Primock, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Phoenix, for appellees.
The parties to this appeal stipulated in the lower court to a dismissal with prejudice of the complaint and cross-complaint pursuant to Rule 41(a), Ariz.Rules Civ.Proc. 16 A.R.S. The order of dismissal was entered on March 28, 1958. More than two years later, on June 30, 1960, defendants-cross-complainants, moved the trial court to vacate the 1958 order of dismissal. This motion was denied on the ground that 'the court has lost jurisdiction.' Defendants now appeal.
Rule 60(c), Ariz.Rules Civ.Proc. provided:
(Emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the order of dismissal amounts to final judgment and that the time for a motion to vacate an order of the trial court under Rule 60(c) does not begin to run until a judgment fee has been paid. No judgment fee has been paid in this case.
We agree that the order of dismissal with prejudice constituted a final disposition of the case by the trial court. State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Edwards, 76 Ariz. 27, 258 P.2d 418 (1953). Such an order becomes effective on the date it is entered in the civil docket, however, and not from the time any fees are paid. See also Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724 (1948) where the inquiry was when a judgment became final for purposes of calculating the time for appeal. We have held that the time for appeal begins to run from the date judgment is recorded in the civil docket regardless of the payment of judgment fees. And see Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 81 Ariz. 104, 301 P.2d 757 (1956).
The order denying appellants' motion to vacate is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
...courts was reviewed on appeal. See Jackson v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 83 Ariz. 20, 315 P.2d 871 (1957); Jackson v. Pacific Investment Company, Inc., 94 Ariz. 416, 385 P.2d 708 (1963); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Jackson, 21 Ariz.App. 176, 517 P.2d 529 (1973). Much was not. The dispute attract......
-
Skinner v. Superior Court In and For Pima County, 10084
...later. We cited as supporting this rule the civil cases of Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538, 447 P.2d 230; Jackson v. Pacific Investment Co., 94 Ariz. 416, 385 P.2d 708, and Zimmerman v. Western Builders' and Salvage Co., 38 Ariz. 91, 297 P. 449. In Belcher, supra, we 'The Goodman, Zimmerma......
-
Belcher v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County
...court sua sponte to vacate the prior order dismissing the cause and to thereafter proceed with the trial. In Jackson v. Pacific Investment Co., 94 Ariz. 416, 385 P.2d 708 (1963), the court ruled that the order of dismissal became final when entered in the civil docket. (In this case the ord......
- State ex rel. Ronan v. Superior Court, In and For Maricopa County