Rosen v. Hadden, 6189
| Decision Date | 05 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 6189,6189 |
| Citation | 81 Ariz. 194,303 P.2d 267 |
| Parties | Rose L. ROSEN, Appellant, v. Leslie J. HADDEN, d/b/a Hadden Construction Co., Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ackerman & Ares, Tucason, for appellant.
Boyle, Billby, Thompson & Shoenhair and Wilbert E. Dolph, Jr., Tucson, for appellee.
Judgment in this cause was entered in favor of appellee for the value of improvements placed on property owned by appellant. The trial court sitting without a jury did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law nor were any requested. Therefore, on this appeal all inferences supported by the evidence will be taken in favor of appellee. Owings v. Borrego, 68 Ariz. 405, 206 P.2d 1050.
In the summer of 1953 appellee and one Rotello were engaged in the business of contracting under the firm name of 'Hadden-Rotello Company'. This partnership was licensed in June, 1953, to engage in the business of contracting, which license did not expire either by statute or by its express terms until June 30, 1954. Appellee Hadden did not personally have a contractor's license. On the 31st day of August, 1953, Hadden and Rotellor formally dissolved their partnership, but agreed that the work of the Hadden-Rotello Company would continue for the purpose of completing outstanding undertakings. Hadden agreed to fulfill the provisions partnership commitments and assumed its liabilities for work and materials arising therefrom. Rotello on his part assigned all proceeds to Hadden.
Several days later in September Hadden started construction on appellant's property. This, it should be emphasized, was after the dissolution; however, the reasonable import of Hadden's testimony leads to the belief that the improvements were the result of negotiations carried on by the partnership prior to the dissolution of August 31st. Hadden specifically testified that this was a Hadden-Rotello partnership job:
By Section 67-2320, A.C.A.1939, as amended, A.R.S. § 32-1153, an unlicensed contractor is prohibited from bringing or maintaining any action in any court of this state to collect compensation for work for which a contractor's license is required. It is appellant's position that Hadden was not a duly licensed contractor at the time of the performance of the services and labor. This position is untenable. A partnership continues to exist after its dissolution for the purpose of winding up its affairs. Engelbrecht v. McCollough, 80 Ariz. 77, 292 P.2d 845.
Appellant also urges that the evidence is sufficient to justify the belief that the partnership of Hadden and Rotello was extinguished by the addition of others as partners, and that this partnership doing business under the name of 'Hadden-Rotello Company' was not licensed. While we think that the evidence might be so construed, it is also susceptible of the construction that there were not additional partners during the time when the improvements were placed on appellant's property. Appellee testified:
'
It is appellant's further position that appellee was not a duly licensed contractor at the time of the Rosen job because of Rule X, Rules and Regulations of the Registrar of Contractors, providing:
'Any change in the personnel of a partnership either by the withdrawal or the addition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kay v. Biggs
...none, all inferences supported by the evidence must be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs and the two judgments. Rosen v. Hadden, 81 Ariz. 194, 303 P.2d 267 (1956); Gardner v. Royal Development Co., 11 Ariz.App. 447, 465 P.2d 386 (1970). The last two questions deal with the propriety of the t......
-
AZ Protek Urethane Techniques, LLC v. Cuadra
...to suspend or revoke a license extends only to the circumstances set forth in pertinent Arizona statutes. Rosen v. Hadden, 81 Ariz. 194, 198, 302 P.2d 267, 269-70 (1956).¶17 In this case, the ALJ (and consequently, the ROC)based the decision on statutory authority, which states, "[t]he hold......
-
Contractor & Min. Service & Supply, Inc. v. H & M Tractor & Bearing Corp.
...P.2d 638, 640 (1956). In addition, 'all inferences supported by the evidence will be taken in favor of appellee.' Rosen v. Hadden, 81 Ariz. 194, 196, 303 P.2d 267, 268 (1956). It should be noted that '(w)here the buyer refuses to accept the goods as being of a quality inferior to that contr......
-
Meadows v. Grant
...we must draw all inferences which arise from the evidence introduced at the trial in favor of sustaining the judgment. Rosen v. Hadden, 81 Ariz. 194, 303 P.2d 267 (1956); Kay v. Biggs ,13 Ariz.App. 172, 475 P.2d 1 Due to the stipulation entered into by the parties prior to trial, we need on......