Patzman v. Marshall, 6822
| Decision Date | 14 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6822,6822 |
| Citation | 90 Ariz. 1,363 P.2d 599 |
| Parties | Kenneth J. PATZMAN and Kathryn N. Patzman, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Paul K. MARSHALL, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Mesch, Jasper, Marquez & Rothschild, Richard C. Harris, Tucson, for appellants.
Darrow, D'Antonio, Hayes & Morales, Tucson, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Paul K. Marshall, contracted to purchase stock in the Bill Edel Motor Company Inc., Tucson, Arizona, from defendant, Kenneth J. Patzman, and paid in the sum of $8,022.68 to Patzman as earnest money. Marshall then rescinded the contract and sued to recover his earnest money; Patzman filed a counter-claim for damages alleging Marshall had breached the contract to purchase the stock. The lower court awarded judgment to Patzman and gave him the $8,022.68 earnest money as his liquidated damages. The plaintiff, Marshall, appealed, and this Court, in the case of Marshall v. Patzman, 81 Ariz. 367, 306 P.2d 287, reversed the case holding that the liquidated damages were, in fact, an unreasonable penalty and remanded it back to the trial court with instructions to determine what damages, if any, resulted from plaintiff's breach of the contract.
On remand, the parties stipulated to a minimum of $1,200 damages, and, after a trial, the court found the defendant had suffered no more. The court awarded the defendant the $1,200 damages on his counter-claim and ordered that plaintiff recover his earnest money less the defendant's $1,200 damages.
Defendant, Patzman, now brings this appeal on two assignments of error:
1. That the uncontradicted credible evidence shows that the defendant, Patzman suffered damages from the breach of contract in an amount of at least $4,209.47.
2. That the lower court on the remand of the case had no basis to award plaintiff any affirmative relief since the trial court was ordered only to assess defendant's damages, if any, suffered on his counter-claim.
Defendant Patzman's second assignment of error as set out above at best is very technical. In any event the court had the right and duty to dispose of the case completely, which it did.
The serious question raised in this appeal is in the first assignment of error. Did the trial court err by failing to give adequate damages based upon the evidence presented at the trial? Defendant, Patzman, claims the evidence shows a minimum of $4,209.47 damages on his counter-claim, while plaintiff, Marshall, contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Maxwell
...184 P.2d 821 (1947).' The rules governing the actions of this Court with regard to factual issues were well set forth in Patzman v. Marshall, 90 Ariz. 1, 363 P.2d 599, as follows: 'In the ruling on this assignment of error we have a clear line of cases in Arizona that establish the followin......
-
Spector v. Spector
...venture in furtherance of the community property was supported by credible evidence, and it will not be set aside. cf. Patzman v. Marshall, 90 Ariz. 1, 363 P.2d 599. It was within his discretion to accept the testimony of the husband, as owner of the house, that its value at the time of tri......
-
American Sur. Co. of New York v. Nash, 6996
...promissory notes for $25,000. 'A judgment will not be disturbed when there is any reasonable evidence to support it.' Patzman v. Marshall, 90 Ariz. 1, 363 P.2d 599 (1961). Since we have approved the ruling of the trial court with reference to the first assignment of error, we do not find it......
-
Kosak v. Mabb
...the court's findings, and the findings will not be disturbed where there is any reasonable evidence to support them. Patzmar v. Marshall, 90 Ariz. 1, 363 P.2d 599 (1961); Bohmfalk v. Vaughan, 89 Ariz. 33, 357 P.2d 617 (1960). With these principles in mind, a review of the record before the ......