Meadows v. Jones

• Decision Date: 21 May 1915
• Docket Number: Civil 1404
• Citation: Meadows v. Jones, 148 P. 874, 17 Ariz. 104 (Ariz. 1915)
• Parties: CHARLES H. MEADOWS, ANNA C. MOLLOY and JOSEPH M. BALSZ, Appellants, v. J. C. JONES and WINGATE LINDSEY, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

148 P. 874

17 Ariz. 104

CHARLES H. MEADOWS, ANNA C. MOLLOY and JOSEPH M. BALSZ, Appellants, v. J. C. JONES and WINGATE LINDSEY, Appellees

Civil No. 1404

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 21, 1915

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma.Frank Baxter, Judge.Reversed and remanded.

Mr Thos. D. Molloy, for Appellants.

No appearance for Appellees.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, J.

The appellantCharles H. Meadows, as plaintiff, commenced this action, alleging in his amended complaint:

"That on March 30, 1913, plaintiff was the owner, and in the actual possession, and entitled to the possession, of 50 mixed cattle, branded, . . . all situate and being in Yuma county Arizona, and on said last-mentioned day the defendantsJ. C. Jones and Wingate Lindsey[appellees], without just cause or right, unlawfully and wrongfully seized and took possession of said 50 cattle, without consent of plaintiff, and ever since and still unlawfully withhold and detain said cattle from the plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of two hundred and twenty-five ($225.00) dollars."

Alleging acts committed by defendants that resulted in injury to the property, damaging plaintiff in the further sum of $225; alleging a demand made for the possession, and a refusal; alleging that the cattle are of the value of $650; alleging "that the plaintiff is still the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of said cattle"; and praying for the possession of the cattle, and for the sum of $450 for their detention, and for damages thereto and costs.The amended complaint was filed July 1, 1913.

The defendants demurred to the amended complaint for the alleged reason and upon the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants.They answered, denying every allegation of the complaint, except the allegation that plaintiff demanded the return of the property and the demand was refused.They denied that defendant Jones has any interest in or is in any way concerned in any matter complained of in said complaint, or had any part therein whatever.DefendantWingate Lindsey, answering separately, answered, purporting to justify the taking of the property described under certain ordinances of the town of Yuma, while acting as poundmaster of the municipal corporation.

The plaintiff moved to make the answer more definite and certain demurred to the sufficiency of the answer, and replied, denying in detail the ordinances, and the authority in defendantWingate Lindsey to act under any ordinance in taking up the property, impounding the property, and in having any lien on the property in his favor for fees and charges, and denied all right in said defendant to the possession of the property until the lien was discharged, or at all, and denied the fact that the property was subject to be taken and impounded, and that any lien for fees and charges arose.The court sustained defendants' demurrer to the complaint, denied plaintiff's motion to make the answer more definite and certain, overruled plaintiff's demurrer to the answer, and, without taking or requiring any proof, rendered judgment based upon elaborate findings of fact.The judgment,...