Sharpensteen v. Sanguinetti
Decision Date | 09 January 1928 |
Docket Number | Civil 2682 |
Citation | 262 P. 609,33 Ariz. 110 |
Parties | C. C. SHARPENSTEEN, Appellant, v. E. F. SANGUINETTI, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Mr Glenn Copple, for Appellant.
Mr. W F. Timmons, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Succinctly stated, the complaint alleges that C. C. Sharpensteen, R. S Sharpensteen, and the Second National Sureties Company had a claim upon an automobile that had been attached by defendant, Sanguinetti, in a suit against one Shroyer, as the latter's property, and were threatening to institute an action to try the right to such property, whereupon Sanguinetti promised and agreed, in consideration of their releasing said claim and forbearing to sue, to pay them their claim in the sum of $561.91. The plaintiff alleges that R. T. Sharpensteen and the Second National Sureties Company assigned their interest in and to said claim, and that he brings the suit in his own right and as assignee for value of his co-claimants. The answer filed by Sanguinetti was a general denial. In a jury trial, the plaintiff recovered the full amount of his claim.
The motion for new trial contains nine separate grounds. The judgment was vacated and a new trial ordered on the grounds of "accident and surprise and newly discovered evidence." These are statutory grounds. Thus it is provided (par. 584, Civil Code 1913) that a new trial may be granted for any of the following causes:
The supporting affidavit to motion was as follows:
Counsel for defendant has not called our attention to anything occurring at or before the trial that might be said to be accident or surprise. There is nothing in the affidavit suggesting such. The issue was whether the plaintiff and his assignors had waived their claim against the automobile in favor of defendant, Sanguinetti, and whether the latter, in consideration thereof, had promised to pay their claim of $561.91. An inspection of the transcript of testimony discloses that the evidence on that issue at the trial was such as might have been expected. There was no question of fraud or deceit or want or failure of consideration in the case. Defendant had notice of the suit and an opportunity to defend, was present at the trial in person and by attorney, and introduced evidence in support of his defense. We cannot discover a scintilla of evidence in the record that would justify the granting of a new trial on the grounds of accident or surprise.
The affidavit of newly discovered evidence is not sufficient. It simply shows that affiant, "acting for and on behalf of defendant" had made discovery of what he calls evidence. So far as this affidavit is concerned, the defendant and his attorney may have known of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker
...have made a directed verdict or judgment n. o. v. improper. We have examined the cases above cited, together with Sharpensteen v. Sanguinetti, 33 Ariz. 110, 262 P. 609, and the case upon which the court there relied, Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Thiebaud, 65 Kan. 332, 69 P. 348; a......
-
Helena Chemical Co. v. Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc.
...Ariz. 443, 96 P.2d 755 (1939); Southern Arizona Freight Lines, Ltd. v. Jackson, 48 Ariz. 509, 63 P.2d 193 (1936); Sharpensteen v. Sanguinetti, 33 Ariz. 110, 262 P. 609 (1928). ALLEGED LIMITATION ON The trial court in granting the new trial stated in part as follows: Defendants, over their s......
-
A.R.A. Mfg. Co. v. Pierce
...Granting a new trial is largely discretionary with the trial court, and we find no abuse of discretion in this case. Sharpensteen v. Sanguinetti, 33 Ariz. 110, 262 P. 609; Murphy v. Thompson, 70 Ariz. 250, 219 P.2d All other assignments of error have been considered and are disposed of by w......
-
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan
...not know of the evidence relied upon but must also show that diligence was used in an effort to discover the same. Sharpensteen v. Sanguinetti, 33 Ariz. 110, 262 P. 609. 39 Am.Jur. New Trial, section 163.' 75 Ariz. at 281, 255 P.2d at It is difficult to see how the proffered cancelled check......