School Dist. No. 1 of Navajo County v. Snowflake Union High School Dist. of Navajo County

• Court: Arizona Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STRUCKMEYER; This case is before us on appeal from the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus by the Superior Court of Navajo County
• Citation: School Dist. No. 1 of Navajo County v. Snowflake Union High School Dist. of Navajo County, 414 P.2d 985, 100 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 1966)
• Decision Date: 26 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 8123,8123
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. #1 OF NAVAJO COUNTY, Arizona (Winslow), School District #2 of Navajo County, Arizona (Joseph City), Winslow High School District of Navajo County, Arizona, and Hubert R. McHood, a member of Board of Supervisors of Navajo County, Arizona, Appellants, v. SNOWFLAKE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NAVAJO COUNTY, Arizona, and School Dist. #5 of Navajo County, Arizona (Snowflake), Appellees.

Page 985

414 P.2d 985

100 Ariz. 389

SCHOOL DIST. #1 OF NAVAJO COUNTY, Arizona (Winslow), School District #2 of Navajo County, Arizona (Joseph City), Winslow High School District of Navajo County, Arizona, and Hubert R. McHood, a member of Board of Supervisors of Navajo County, Arizona, Appellants, v. SNOWFLAKE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NAVAJO COUNTY, Arizona, and School Dist. #5 of Navajo County, Arizona (Snowflake), Appellees.

No. 8123.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.

May 26, 1966.

Denzil G. Tyler, Winslow, Mangum, Christensen & Wall, Flagstaff, for appellants.

D. L. Greer, St. Johns, Stevenson, Babitt, Warden & Smith, Flagstaff, for appellees.

STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice.

This case is before us on appeal from the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus by the Superior Court of Navajo County, Judge William A. Holohan, presiding.

The same operative facts set out in length in Cause No. 8511, decided by us this date, Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School Dist. No. 1, Navajo County, Ariz., 414 P.2d 976, are involved herein and will not be repeated. In that case we determined, Inter alia, that the peremptory writ of mandamus as ordered by Judge Holohan August 22, 1963, was not res judicata of the issues in the certiorari action pending before Judge McGhee for the reasons stated therein.

The instant appeal is brought by respondents, the Winslow and Joseph City Common School Districts and one member of the Board of Supervisors of Navajo County. The same issue was involved below in the instant case as in Cause No. 8511; namely, the validity of the orders of the Board of Supervisors of Navajo County issued January 12, 1962, and March 25, 1963. In Cause No. 8511, we determined that the March 25, 1963, order was a valid exercise of the Board's authority and there is no need to discuss it further.

We are primarily concerned here with the exercise of jurisdiction by Judge Holohan. Following the issuance of the alternative writ, respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the prior judgment in the certiorari action, and in their answer to the complaint for mandamus respondents again set forth the judgment entered by Judge McGhee as res judicata of the issues. At the trial, they introduced into evidence the record in that case in support of their motion to dismiss. Although this judgment was later construed by Judge McGhee as an order for judgment because of the failure to comply with Rule 58(d), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., it was a judgment valid on its face and therefore not subject to collateral attack. It constituted a bar to the mandamus action and was binding until reversed on appeal.

The doctrine of res judicata was available for the reason that the common good of society as a whole and of litigants in particular requires there be an end to strife for purposes of producing a certainty as to individual rights and to promote dignity and respect for judicial proceedings. Lee v. Johnson, 70 Ariz. 122, 216 P.2d 722.

In Dockery v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 45 Ariz. 434, 45 P.2d 656, we held that an Order made by a probate court in the exercise of its jurisdiction has the same dignity and is entitled to the same presumption of a jurisdiction as a judgment. In that case, an order of the probate court approving a settlement was held to be res judicata in a later action filed in superior court, this Court finding that the subsequent action amounted to a collateral...