State Consol. Pub. Co. v. Hill, Civil 3028
Decision Date | 09 November 1931 |
Docket Number | Civil 3028 |
Parties | STATE CONSOLIDATED PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Corporation and a Taxpayer of the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona, Appellant, v. BEN C. HILL, as City Attorney of Said City of Tucson, FRANK J. CORDIS, F. E. GERLACH, W. H. HART, E. D. ROCKWELL, P. M. ELIAS and GEORGE L. REID, as Councilmen of Said City of Tucson, C. E. PEQUIGNOT, as City Auditor of Said City of Tucson, and W. A. JULIAN, as Mayor of Said City of Tucson, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
On motion for rehearing on appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Ordered that the judgment be modified by striking therefrom name of C. E. Pequignot as judgment debtor. Rehearing denied.
For original opinion, see ante, p. 21, 3 P.2d 525.
Messrs Linn & Allen, for Appellant.
Mr. Ben C. Hill, in pro. per. and for All Appellees.
Appellee Hill has filed a motion for rehearing in which he says our decision "is apparently based upon a misapprehension of the record, particularly with reference to the issues presented by the pleadings and the theory upon which the case was tried in the lower court."
Appellee is his own attorney, and in his motion we think has well demonstrated that his client has a very pugnacious persistent, fearless, and zealous lawyer; also that the lawyer has a client who devoutly believes he is right in this litigation. Acting in this dual capacity, it is evident that the client's zeal has entirely eclipsed the sound judgment of the lawyer, and that the latter is looking too much through the glasses of the former, and not enough through the glasses of the counselor and adviser.
With all due respect to both client and lawyer, we did not misapprehend the record, or the issues, or the theory upon which the case was tried in the lower court.
These facts are indubitable, and appear in the record: That the city of Tucson is a municipal corporation; that during the years 1928 and 1929 appellee was its city attorney; that his salary was $4,200 per year; that the city annually budgeted that amount, and no more, to that office; that appellee was appointed such city attorney some five times, each time for a term of two years. We quote trial questions to appellee and his answers thereto, as follows:
The trial judge, we assume, knew the issues and the theory upon which the case was tried. In a memorandum opinion, he said:
After stating the issues and theories of plaintiff, the court proceeds to decide, giving his reasons therefor at considerable length, that section 17 of part 2 of article 4 of the Constitution does not apply. He says that it "was admitted by both sides . . . that there is no provision in the constitution or laws of the state of Arizona . . . which specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne
...cannot stipulate as to the law applicable to a given state of facts and bind the court.'" (quoting State Consol. Publ'g Co. v. Hill, 39 Ariz. 163, 167, 4 P.2d 668, 669 (1931))). This is particularly true in the area of custody and visitation where the superior court's jurisdiction is expres......
-
Cook v. Cook, 1 CA-CV 03-0727.
...and bind the court.'" Word v. Motorola, Inc., 135 Ariz. 517, 520, 662 P.2d 1024, 1027 (1983) (quoting State Consol. Publ'g Co. v. Hill, 39 Ariz. 163, 167, 4 P.2d 668, 669 (1931)); see also Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) ("Without a prior judici......
-
Adams v. the Comm'n On Appellate Court Appointments
...Article 4, Part 2, Section 17 on changes in compensation of “public officers” during term of office), modified on other grounds, 39 Ariz. 163, 4 P.2d 668 (1931). ¶ 12 Thus, “public office” as used in § 1(3) includes offices of the state or any of its political subdivisions, excluding school......
-
Poorman v. State Board of Equalization
... ... municipal. State Consol. Pub. Co. v. Hill, 39 Ariz ... 21, 3 P.2d 525, and Id., ... ...