Southwest Hay & Grain Co. v. Sherer

• Decision Date: 31 December 1919
• Docket Number: Civil 1748
• Citation: 21 Ariz. 166,185 P. 820
• Parties: SOUTHWEST HAY AND GRAIN COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. ROBERT SHERER and C. E. CROWLEY, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of ROBERT SHERER & COMPANY, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

185 P. 820

21 Ariz. 166

SOUTHWEST HAY AND GRAIN COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. ROBERT SHERER and C. E. CROWLEY, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of ROBERT SHERER & COMPANY, Appellees

Civil No. 1748

Supreme Court of Arizona

December 31, 1919

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. R. C. Stanford, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr. W H. Stilwell, for Appellant.

Mr. C F. Ainsworth, for Appellees.

OPINION

BAKER J.

The above-entitled action was brought to recover the value of 36,356 pounds of oat hay alleged to have been converted by the defendant. The defense interposed was that the defendant had moved the hay from a shed near Mesa to its warehouse in Phoenix and there stored the hay subject to plaintiff's order. It is claimed that the expense incurred by the defendant in the removal of the hay consisting of freight and drayage charges, insurance, commissions, etc., was a proper charge against the plaintiff, and that the defendant offered to ship the hay to the plaintiff upon being paid such charges, but that the plaintiff refused to make such payment, and that thereupon the defendant sold the hay in open market for the net sum of $258.14 and tendered that amount to the plaintiff in its answer to the complaint. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $539.33. The defendant appeals from the judgment and the order overruling its motion for a new trial. It will be noticed that the amount involved in the litigation is really only about $281.19.

The points raised on the appeal and argued in the briefs of counsel are so simple and commonplace as not to warrant or justify any extended or elaborate discussion of the assignments of error. Out of such poor material it is not possible to formulate a precedent that would be of the slightest interest to the profession, or that would add anything of value to the general store of legal learning. We therefore feel justified in reducing the opinion to the mere statement of our conclusion without adding any elaborate reasons therefor.

The defendant complains, in the first place, of the ruling of the trial court requiring the payment by the defendant of $44.52 witness fees, as a condition to set aside a default judgment which had been entered against the defendant. This complaint is overruled. It was within the sound discretion of the court to impose reasonable terms upon...