Mosher v. Hiner, Civil 4743
Decision Date | 11 December 1944 |
Docket Number | Civil 4743 |
Citation | 154 P.2d 372,62 Ariz. 110 |
Parties | H. L. MOSHER, as Attorney in Fact for CARRIE A. LOUNT, a Widow, Appellant, v. HALBERT H. HINER and NELL E. HINER, His Wife, WILLIAM TELL and LUCILLE TELL, His Wife, Doing Business as Co-partners Under the Firm Name of PHOENIX AUTO TOP COMPANY; JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and DOE CORPORATION, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Dudley W. Windes, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Mrs. H L. Mosher, Attorney in Fact for Appellant.
Messrs Snell, Strouss & Wilmer, for Appellees.
This action is appealed from a judgment of dismissal of the superior court of Maricopa County, and was brought to recover four months rent due and to recover the premises, the premises having been rented for $ 30 per month by Carrie A. Lount, the landlord, to the appellees, the grounds for bringing the first action being that the appellees had failed to pay rent for a period of four months.
The opening brief of the appellant has the statement: "That the business transacted in the so called 407 North First was a community business for the support of the appellees," but the complaint does not have any such statement.
Appellant submits six assignments of error, but they are mainly in regard to matters that are not important in the case. The case rests on the motion to dismiss filed by the appellees on February 29, 1944, on the following grounds:
The minute entry of the trial court does not set forth the grounds upon which the case was dismissed, but from reading the files we find the main issues to be that the action was not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest and was filed by an attorney in fact instead of an attorney at law or by a party in interest. In any event, these are barriers that the appellant must overcome in order to maintain the action.
On the subject of the real party in interest, we quote the following from the early case of Curry v. County of Gila, 6 Ariz. 48, 53 P. 4:
"Any person interested in the subject-matter of the suit who has a personal interest in the judgment is a 'real party in interest,' and unless joined in the action he cannot be bound by the judgment, and for this very reason the law says that he shall be made a party. . . ."
Our Code, Sec. 21-501, is as follows:
There can be no doubt but that a person may bring an action in his own name under our law notwithstanding he is not the sole party in interest, but in the instant case the appellant brings the action as attorney in fact and it can be seen where we would lead to if we refer to Sec. 21-1835 of our Code, which reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunt Inv. Co. v. Eliot, CA-CIV
...has held that an attorney in fact, not licensed to practice law, could not represent anyone other than herself. Mosher v. Hiner, 62 Ariz. 110, 113-14, 154 P.2d 372, 374 (1944). In Bloch v. Bentfield, this court held that although a plaintiff who was not licensed to practice law could repres......
-
General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Little
...creditor the real party in interest as required by Rule 17(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. 1 General cites from Mosher v. Hiner, 62 Ariz. 110, 154 P.2d 372, language taken from the early case of Curry v. County of Gila, 6 Ariz. 48, 53 P. 4, the 'Any person interested in the subject-......
-
Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick
...the assignee as he could the original claimant. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Little, supra; Mosher v. Hiner, 62 Ariz. 110, 112, 154 P.2d 372, 374 (1944), cert. den., 325 U.S. 874, 65 S.Ct. 1554, 89 L.Ed. 1992 (1945). Although we have not passed on the issue (and do not do so......
-
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Maricopa County Superior Court
...by a licensed attorney at law, but only by plaintiff's husband, who purported to be 'Acting Attorney' for his wife. In Mosher v. Hiner, 62 Ariz. 110, 154 P.2d 372 (1944), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint signed for the plaintiff only by an unlicensed 'attorney in fact......