Phoenix Safety Inv. Co. v. James

Citation237 P. 958,28 Ariz. 514
Decision Date14 July 1925
Docket NumberCivil 2146
PartiesPHOENIX SAFETY INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. B. W. JAMES, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. F. H. Lyman, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr. L L. Pearson, for Appellant.

Messrs Kibbey, Bennett, Gust & Smith, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

George C. Bent filed a suit in the superior court of Maricopa county against B. W. James, hereinafter called defendant, on a promissory note in the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500), of which Bent was payee, and defendant, Win Wylie and Phoenix Safety Investment Company, a corporation hereinafter called plaintiff, were joint makers. Defendant answered, alleging a conspiracy between Wylie and Bent to defraud him and a fraudulent alteration of the note. Thereafter plaintiff filed a motion to allow it to be substituted as plaintiff in this action, on the ground that it had purchased the note for a valuable consideration. No formal order was made allowing the substitution, but plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint, and thereafter an amended supplemental complaint, setting up the note and assignment by Bent, and that it, plaintiff, was merely an accommodation maker; praying judgment on the note as its legal owner, or, if it was held not to be the legal assignee with right to recover on the note, it should be held the equitable assignee, and recover the amount actually paid by it thereon.

Defendant demurred to the amended supplemental complaint on the ground that another cause of action had been set up thereby, and that the note had been discharged by its assignment to plaintiff; it being one of the joint makers. He also set up that plaintiff was merely the creature of Win Wylie, used by him as a cloak for his actions, and not an independent entity. The matter was tried to the court without a jury, on the issues raised by the amended supplemental complaint of plaintiff and the answer thereto. Evidence was introduced and the issues duly argued. The ruling on the demurrers of defendant was reserved until the final determination on the merits, and finally, without filing findings of fact, a general judgment was rendered for defendant. The usual motion for new trial was made and continued from time to time and finally overruled by the court, and plaintiff appeals from the order denying the motion for new trial and the judgment.

The defense presented was substantially that under paragraph 4264, R.S.A. 1913 (Civ. Code), the note was discharged by payment "by, or on behalf of, the principal debtor."

It is claimed: First, that plaintiff was really the "alter ego" of Win Wylie, who was admittedly a "principal debtor"; second, that, even if it was not, it was, though only an accommodation maker, a "principal debtor" in the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon this state of the record, if there is any reasonable theory of the case and sufficient evidence in support thereof upon which the judgment of the trial court can be sustained, we are bound to uphold it. Brown v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • In re Gary's Estate
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1949
    ... ... v. United Eastern Min. Co., 24 ... Ariz. 269, 209 P. 283; Phoenix Safety Inv. Co. v ... James, 28 Ariz. 514, 237 P. 958; Julian v ... ...
  • Phelps Dodge Corp., Morenci Branch v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1962
    ...Co. v. Riley, 88 Ariz. 335, 356 P.2d 648; Odom v. First National Bank of Arizona, 85 Ariz. 238, 336 P.2d 141; Phoenix Safety Investment Co. v. James, 28 Ariz. 514, 237 P. 958. (3). Petitioner complained that for three months prior to the rehearing of November 17th, 1958, the Clifton-morenci......
  • Nettles v. Rhett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • April 25, 1936
    ...v. Pearson (C.C.A.1st, 1934) 73 F.(2d) 673, 97 A.L.R. 1243. See, also, Peckett v. Wood (C.C.A.N.J.1916) 234 F. 833; Phœnix Safety Inv. Co. v. James, 28 Ariz. 514, 237 P. 958; In re Scrimger's Estate, 188 Cal. 158, 206 P. 65; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 141 Md. 67, 118 ......
  • Employer's Liability Assur. Corp. v. Lunt
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1957
    ... ... Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask and Roderic M. Jennings, Phoenix, for appellant Employer's Liability Assur. Corp ...         [82 ... 308, 25 P.2d 552; Mosher v. Lee, 32 Ariz. 560, 261 P. 35; Phoenix Safety Investment ... Co. v. James, 28 Ariz. 514, 237 P. 958; Rice v. Sanger ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT