Prina v. Board of Sup'rs of Graham County

• Decision Date: 17 October 1914
• Docket Number: Civil 1429
• Citation: 16 Ariz. 252,143 P. 567
• Parties: Z. C. PRINA and L. J. BROSHEARS, Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF GRAHAM COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, and A. C. PETERSON, PHIL C. MERRILL and W. L. NELSON, Members Thereof, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

143 P. 567

16 Ariz. 252

Z. C. PRINA and L. J. BROSHEARS, Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF GRAHAM COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, and A. C. PETERSON, PHIL C. MERRILL and W. L. NELSON, Members Thereof, Appellees

Civil No. 1429

Supreme Court of Arizona

October 17, 1914

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Graham. A. G. McAlister, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. F C. Jacobs, for Appellants.

Mr. Lee N. Stratton, for Appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs commenced this action, praying for a writ of mandamus compelling the appellees, as members of the board of supervisors of Graham county, to re-establish the boundaries of election precinct No. 1 of said county so as to include therein only the territory covered by the corporate limits of the incorporated town of Safford, and exclude all territory lying outside of such corporate limits included in said precinct No. 1 as now defined. Plaintiffs alleged reasons and grounds for such change in the boundaries of said precinct: First. That two proposed laws have been initiated to be voted upon at the general state election to be held on November 3, 1914. One of said proposed laws is a constitutional amendment, which by its terms, if it becomes effective, will prohibit the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors of any kind within the state of Arizona after the 1st day of January, 1915. That the other proposed law is in its nature also a constitutional amendment, by the terms of which, if an election has been held, or is hereafter held, upon the question of prohibition throughout the state and if a majority of the votes cast on such question shall be or were against prohibition, each and every town or precinct where a majority of the votes cast on such question shall be or were against prohibition shall be deemed to have voted against prohibition, and the sale of intoxicating liquors shall thereafter be permitted; and when the vote cast in such town or precinct is in favor of prohibition the said town or precinct shall be deemed to have voted in favor of prohibition, and thereafter the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited therein. The plaintiffs allege that they are qualified electors and resident taxpayers of and within the town of Safford.

The respondents, as members of such board of supervisors, answered by objecting to the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the action, demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that the facts stated are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action or justify the relief demanded, and returned alleging that they as such board had, prior to June, 1914, established a convenient number of election precincts within Graham county, and had defined the boundaries thereof as the law requires, and that precinct No. 1 was at that date established by respondents, and that at their regular June, 1914, meeting they appointed the necessary election officers for said precinct No. 1 for holding the general election called to be held on the 3d day of November, 1914.

The parties have stipulated that the pleadings state all the facts. The cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings. Judgment was rendered for the appellees, and the writ denied, from which judgment, and from the order refusing a new trial, plaintiffs have appealed.

The question of parties has not been greatly pressed by counsel, and from the view we take of the case on the merits we will concede, without deciding, that the plaintiffs have shown such an interest in the litigation as will justify the court in considering the cause on its merits. We do not decide the question whether the complaint upon its face discloses a defect of parties plaintiff. The vital decisive question is whether the facts stated constitute a cause of action -- justify the relief demanded. No good purpose would be served by setting forth the allegations of the complaint in detail, but would extend this opinion to undue length. The controlling facts appear above.

Appellants contend that paragraph 2913, Civil Code of Arizona of 1913, casts upon appellees the plain legal duty to...