Ramirez v. Main
| Decision Date | 22 March 1907 |
| Docket Number | Civil 963 |
| Citation | 89 P. 508,11 Ariz. 43 |
| Parties | C. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. FRANK M. MAIN, Defendant in Error |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
ERROR from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Santa Cruz. Geo. R. Davis, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.
Frank J. Duffy, W. F. Cooper and Eb. Williams, for Plaintiff in Error.
Selim M. Franklin, for Defendant in Error.
-- In the district court of Santa Cruz county, the plaintiff in error brought suit against the defendant in error upon his complaint, which, omitting the formal parts reads as follows: "That on the twentieth day of July, 1903, at the said county of Santa Cruz, one Jesus Mendoza, being then and there the servant of, and in the employ of, this plaintiff, had in his possession, and intrusted to him by this said plaintiff and as such servant and agent, a certain sum of money, to wit: The sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) in money of the Republic of Mexico, the same being the property of this plaintiff, and being intrusted to the said Jesus Mendoza as aforesaid, for the specific purpose of safely carrying and conveying the same from the bank of Sonora to the office or place of business of this plaintiff, there to be delivered to this plaintiff for his use and benefit; that the said Jesus Mendoza, without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, and in violation of his trust as such servant and employee, did, at the date, and in the county aforesaid, engage in a gambling game with one Frank M. Main, the defendant herein, and therein did lose and pass to the possession of the said Frank M. Main, the sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars ($5,950), money of the Republic of Mexico, as aforesaid, the same being of the money of the said C. Ramirez, the plaintiff herein, intrusted to him, the said Jesus Mendoza, as aforesaid; that the said Frank M. Main has and holds the said sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars ($5,950), money of the Republic of Mexico, as aforesaid, the property of this plaintiff, without consideration, and without legal or equitable title; that the said defendant is indebted to this plaintiff in the said sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars ($5,950), money of the Republic of Mexico, as aforesaid, all and every part of which is due from said defendant to this plaintiff; that on the said twentieth day of July, 1903, one dollar of the money of the Republic of Mexico was of the value of forty-three cents of the money of the United States of America, and that the said sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars ($5,950) of money of the Republic of Mexico, was, on said twentieth day of July, 1903, of the value of two thousand five hundred and fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents, in lawful money of the United States of America; that plaintiff has demanded the said sum of money so due, but that defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof." The prayer of the complaint is for the recovery of $5,950, money of the Republic of Mexico, or its value, at the date of its loss, in lawful money of the United States, alleged to have been the said sum of $2,558.50. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground that no cause of action was stated therein. The correctness of this ruling presents the sole question for our decision.
The complaint is inartificially drawn in some respects, but we think it is not obnoxious to a general demurrer. In substance, it states that Mendoza, as the servant of the plaintiff in error, was intrusted with property belonging to plaintiff in error described as $6,000 in money of the Republic of Mexico, and that this property was, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff in error, lost by Mendoza in a gambling game with the defendant in error; that at the time it was lost the said property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hays v. Robinson
...Mich. 215, 158 N.W. 860; Pangborn v. Ruemenapp, 74 Mich. 572, 42 N.W. 78; Okerson v. Crittenden, 62 Iowa 297, 17 N.W. 528; Ramirez v. Main, 11 Ariz. 43, 89 P. 508; v. Latta, 35 Mont. 9, 88 P. 402; Hall v. Bassler, 96 A.D. 96, 88 N.Y.S. 1039; Hoover v. Lewin, 56 Ind.App. 367, 105 N.E. 400.) ......
-
Kramlich v. Tullock
...of "$1,850 in cash" has been held a sufficient description of the property. Dunham v. Cox, 81 Conn. 268, 70 A. 1033. In Ramirez v. Main, 11 Ariz. 43, 89 P. 508, it was that a complaint to recover "$5,950, money of the Republic of Mexico," was good as against a general demurrer, and that the......