Searles v. Haldiman
| Decision Date | 09 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 413 P.2d 860,3 Ariz.App. 294 |
| Parties | R. D. 'Dick' SEARLES, Appellant, v. Joseph C. HALDIMAN, Jr., and Acme Real Estate and Development, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Appellee. 124. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Burns & Ferrin, by S. Paul Ferrin, Phoenix, for appellant.
Johnson & Shaw, by Marvin Johnson, Phoenix, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order granting defendant's motion to set aside a default.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in libel on 13 August, 1964. Copies of the summons and complaint was personally served upon the defendant, Joseph C. Haldiman, Jr., individually and as President of the Acme Real Estate and Development, Inc., on the same day. Affidavit on default and entry of default was filed 22 September, 1964, and motion to set aside default was filed by the defendants 15 October, 1964. The minute entry of 6 November, 1964, reads as follows:
'This matter having been submitted for ruling without argument, and the court being fully advised in the premises,
'IT IS ORDERED granting defendant's motion to set aside default.'
Although the parties have not questioned our jurisdiction, we must, nevertheless, pass upon our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42, 365 P.2d 208 (1961), Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412, 403 P.2d 559 (1965), Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz.App. 421, 403 P.2d 825 (1965), Ginn v. Superior Court, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 404 P.2d 721 (1965).
Generally, the power of this Court to review actions of the Superior Court is limited by 12--2101 A.R.S., and 12--120.21 A.R.S. State v. Mileham, 1 Ariz.App. 67, 399 P.2d 688 (1965). In the instant case, neither this Court nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order granting or denying a motion to set aside an entry of default. Our Supreme Court has stated:
Rueda v Galvez, 94 Ariz. 131, 132, 133, 382 P.2d 239, 240 (1963)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
...v. Director of Insurance, 101 Ariz. 544, 422 P.2d 108 (1966); Rueda v. Galvez, 94 Ariz. 131, 382 P.2d 239 (1963); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966); Ginn v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 404 P.2d 721 Therefore, a prerequisite to our consi......
-
Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
...stated, this court has a duty, on its own motion, to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966); Ginn v. Superior Court, in and for County of Pima, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 404 P.2d 721 (1965); Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz.App. 421......
-
State v. Wimberg
...403 P.2d 825 (1965), review denied; Ginn v. Superior Court, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 404 P.2d 721 (1965), review denied; Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966); Hunt v. Molloy, 3 Ariz.App. 327, 414 P.2d 176 (1966); Pegler v. Sullivan, 4 Ariz.App. 149, 418 P.2d 395 (1966); Rogers ......
-
Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advertising Co., Inc. v. Century Capital Corp., 1
...Knight v. Mewszel, 3 Ariz.App. 295, 413 P.2d 861 (1966) (order setting aside a default judgment is appealable); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966) (no jurisdiction to consider appeal from order granting or denying a motion to set aside an entry of Despite this line of......