Love v. Bracamonte
| Decision Date | 11 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2317 |
| Citation | 241 P. 514,29 Ariz. 357 |
| Parties | T. D. LOVE and SEVENTY-NINE MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellants, v. Y. BRACAMONTE, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of "THE PHOENIX GROCERY & MEAT MARKET," et al., (Intervening Creditors Below), Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
On motion for rehearing of appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. W. R. Chambers, Judge. Order of affirmance heretofore entered is now modified. For former opinion, see ante, p. 227, 240 P. 351.
Mr Selim M. Franklin, for Appellants.
Mr Alexander Murry, for Appellees.
Appellant Love in a motion for rehearing reminds us that we were mistaken in refusing to consider assignment number six upon the ground that it had not been argued, and cites us to the place in brief where such assignment was taken up and argued in connection with assignment number three. Our oversight can be accounted for in part at least by the transposition of this assignment from the end of the brief, where in its order it belonged, to another part thereof, and to the further fact that it was treated in brief as depending upon the same law and facts as assignment number three. We were of the opinion when we stated that assignment number six was waived that it was good, and it would have been so held except for the fact that we thought it had been abandoned by appellant Love.
The facts show that Love was a promoter and an intermediary between the grantor, Continental Commission Company, and grantee, Seventy-Nine Mining Company; that he took title in his name and agreed to pay the consideration for transfer mainly for the purpose of facilitating the deal and acquiring control of the future operation and development of the mining property. The consideration he agreed to pay consisted of three items, to wit, balance of purchase price of option $62,500; to assume the indebtedness of the Continental Commission Company, estimated at $60,000; and to advance for equipment and operating expenses $27,500, but in no event was he to pay more than $150,000.
The only ground for letting judgment go against Love must have been on his agreement to pay the debts of the old company. It is, we think, conclusively shown from the record that he had fully performed that part of his contract.
The judgment cannot go against Love as a trustee of creditors of the Continental Commission Company, since he parted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ferrari
...to search for the evidence to overturn the judgment. Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 240 P. 351 modified on other grounds 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514 (1925); Grounds v. Lawe, 67 Ariz. 176, 193 P.2d 447 (1948). However, in view of the gravity of the charges against appellant in this case, the......
-
Lewkowitz, In re, 5235
...will not be granted where the points urged amount only to a reargument of propositions of law already considered, Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514; or to reopen the whole case in order to review a former decision, yet that seems to have been exactly what has been done in this ca......
-
Drew v. United States
...was stated as follows in Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 235, 240 P. 351, 353 (1925); modified in a respect not here material, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514 (1925); and expressly applied by the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson v. Commissioner, 334 F.2d......
-
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF TUCSON v. CIR
...inquiry is stated as follows in Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 235, 240 P. 351, 353; modified in a respect not here material, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514: "* * * the settled law of this jurisdiction, and generally, is that a transferee of an insolvent corporation takes the assets of such co......