Sweeney v. Winslow Gas Co.
Citation | 64 Ariz. 51,165 P.2d 316 |
Decision Date | 14 January 1946 |
Docket Number | 4869 |
Parties | SWEENEY v. WINSLOW GAS CO |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Appeal from Superior Court, Navajo County; W. E. Ferguson, Judge.
Appeal dismissed.
Wilson Compton & Wilson, of Flagstaff, for appellant.
Floyd M. Stahl, of Phoenix, and C. D. McCauley, of Winslow, for appellee.
J. L. Sweeney, appellant, brought an action against Winslow Gas Company, a corporation, for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered due to the alleged negligence of the gas company. The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant company. From this judgment and the order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, appellant appealed to this court. Appellee has filed a motion to strike the reporter's transcript of the evidence, and a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to strike the reporter's transcript is grounded upon the fact that it was not filed with the clerk of the superior court within the time prescribed by Section 22-202, A.C.A.1939.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is predicated upon the fact that the record on appeal was not transmitted to the supreme court within the time required by the provisions of Rules 73(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Section 21-1817, Id.) or within any extension of time made or granted for transmitting said record on appeal. Appellee also presents the additional ground for dismissal that the appellant did not comply with the provisions of Rule 75(d) (Section 21-1822, Id.) in that, not having designated for inclusion the complete record, he failed to serve a concise statement of the points on which he intended to rely on appeal. Our disposition of the first ground of the motion to dismiss the appeal obviates any necessity for passing upon the second ground of the motion to dismiss. The authority of this court to entertain these motions and make such disposition thereof as it deems appropriate, including the power to order the dismissal of the appeal, is conferred by Rule 73(a) (Section 21-1802, Id.). See In re Gammill, 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 501. Rule 73(a) reads as follows:
We here set forth in chronological order the dates and events in the record after motion for a new trial was denied:
May
18, 1945
Order denying motion for a new trial.
9, 1945
Order of superior court extending
to August 25 time within which to file
and serve transcript of the evidence.
Aug.
24, 1945
Order of the superior court extending
for "thirty days as from today"
time within which to file reporter's
transcript of the evidence.
Sept.
17, 1945
Date on which court reporter certi-
fied transcript of the evidence.
Oct.
2, 1945
Plaintiff filed with clerk of superior
court his designation of contents of
record that he required on appeal and
included in this designation the tran-
script of reporter's notes.
Oct.
3, 1945
Transcript of the evidence filed with
clerk of superior court.
Nov.
10, 1945
Transcript of evidence presented to
judge and certified by him as correct.
Nov.
13, 1945
Record on appeal, including tran-
script of evidence, transmitted by
clerk of superior court to clerk of
supereme court.
This rule provides that the record must be transmitted within forty days from the date of the notice of appeal. We hold that the word "date" does not refer to the date line in the notice, but to the date or time when the notice is filed. To make the appeal effective the notice of appeal must be filed with the superior court. Rule 72 (Section 21-1801, Id.); In re Guanajuato Reduction & Mines Co., D.C.N.J.1939, 29 F.Supp. 789, 41 Am.Bankr.Rep., N.S., 3. The emphasis throughout the various rules is always on the filing date of the notice of appeal. See Rule 72 (Section 21-1801, Id.), Rule 75(g) Section 21-1825, Id.), and Rule 76 (Section 21-1830, Id.).
The motion of the appellee to strike the reporter's transcript is specifically grounded on Section 22-202, Id., which section, prior to the adoption of the new rules, prescribed the time within which a statement of facts or a transcript of the court reporter's notes might be filed. This section reads as follows:
However, it is apparent and we hold that under the provisions of the act authorizing the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Courts, being Chapter 8, Session Laws 1939, Section 19-204, A.C.A.1939, Section 22-202 is no longer the governing section. It has definitely been superseded by Rule 75(b) (Section 21-1820, Id.). Section 19-204, supra, specifically provides that "All statutes relating to pleading, practice and procedure, existing at the time this act takes effect shall be deemed to be rules of court and shall remain in effect as such until modified or suspended by rules promulgated pursuant to this act." See Burney v. Lee, 59 Ariz. 360, 129 P.2d 308.
This court takes judicial notice that the Rules of Civil Procedure became effective January 1, 1940. Beginning with Rule 72 (Section 21-1801), these rules govern the procedure on appeal. Rule 75(a) (Section 21-1819, Id.) requires that (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 72 (Section 21-1801, Id.) provides that the notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days from the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. After the notice of appeal is filed, the appellant shall promptly file his designation of the record required on appeal. Rule 75(b) (Section 21-1820) provides that:
Clearly this rule, which is an affirmative change made by the Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the reporter's transcript be filed at the time the designation of the record on appeal is filed.
We believe it advisable here to point out to the members of the state bar that in order to successfully perfect an appeal and actually get the record in the Supreme Court meticulous attention...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaefer v. Duhame
... ... 22-204 has to do with proceedings after ... filing statement or notice of transcript. In respect to Sec ... 22-202 this court stated in Sweeney v. Winslow Gas Co., 64 ... Ariz. 51, 165 P.2d 316, 318, "However, it is apparent ... and we hold that under the provisions of the act authorizing ... ...
-
State ex rel. Sullivan v. Patterson
... ... Juliani and John W. Rood, ... Asst.Attys. Gen., for petitioner ... C. B ... Wilson, of Flagstaff, and C. D. McCauley, of Winslow, for ... respondent ... La ... Prade, Judge. Stanford, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur ... La ... Prade, Judge ... ...
-
Davis v. Kleindienst
...On January 22, 1946, appellee filed in this court his motion to dismiss the appeal. This motion came subsequent to our decision in the Sweeney case, supra. second notice on appeal was filed on August 25th. If this second notice of appeal was effective, October 4th would have been the last d......
-
In re Hesse's Estate, 4878
... ... 267, 252 ... P. 189; Brown v. Jerrild, 29 Ariz. 121, 239 P. 795; ... County of Pinal v. Heiner, 24 Ariz. 346, 209 P. 714; ... Sweeney v. Winslow Gas Co., 64 Ariz. 51, 165 P.2d ... The ... fact that out-of-state attorneys prepared appellants' ... brief and orally argued ... ...