Thornburg v. Frye, Civil 3450
Decision Date | 08 October 1934 |
Docket Number | Civil 3450 |
Citation | 44 Ariz. 282,36 P.2d 548 |
Parties | WAYNE THORNBURG, Appellant v. BARBARA BIXBY FRYE, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr C H. Young, for Appellant.
Mr Herman Lewkowitz and Mr. J. B. Zaversack, for Appellee.
This is an appeal by Wayne Thornburg, hereinafter called defendant, from a judgment in favor of Barbara Bixby Frye hereinafter called plaintiff, on account of alleged personal injuries received by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The assignments of error read as follows:
Rule XII of this court is in the following language:
"Rule XII.
Assignment of Error.
And our rules for years have been substantially the same.
It is evident on testing the assignments of error by this rule that, with one possible exception, they wholly fail even approximately to comply therewith. We have reiterated the necessity of a compliance with this rule again and again. Federico v. Hancock, 1 Ariz. 511, 25 P. 650; Daggs v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 5 Ariz. 409, 53 P. 201; Daniel v. Gallagher, 11 Ariz. 151, 89 P. 412; Sanford v. Ainsa, 13 Ariz. 287, 114 P. 560, affirmed 228 U.S. 705, 33 S.Ct. 704, 57 L.Ed. 1033; Liberty M. & S. Co. v. Geddes, 11 Ariz. 54, 90 P. 332; Hardiker v. Rice, 11 Ariz. 401, 94 P. 1094; Williams v. Williams, 37 Ariz. 176, 291 P. 993; Reid v. Van Winkle, 31 Ariz. 267, 252 P. 189. Nor can argument in appellant's brief take the place of proper assignments. Wootan v. Roten, 19 Ariz. 235, 168 P. 640; Pinal County v. Heiner, 24 Ariz. 346, 209 P. 714; Reid v. Van Winkle, supra.
The only assignments that by the utmost liberality can be considered as coming within the rule are Nos. 4 and 5. These may perhaps be taken as an attempt to urge...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tidwell v. Riggs
...our own motion. This court collated the cases concerning the insufficiency of assignments of error in the leading case of Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548. For the edification of the members of the bar we here collate the cases decided since the Thornburg case. Miller v. Kearnes......
-
State v. Hollis
...Those assignments which do point out the ruling of the court are defective in that the ground of error is not stated. Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548 (1934); Rules of Supreme Court 5(c). Insufficient assignments are not cured by reference to the argument or other portions of th......
-
Schaefer v. Duhame
...... the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior. Courts, being Chapter 8, Session Laws 1939, ...* * *'. . . In its. case of Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d. 548, 549, this court said:. . . ......
-
Porter v. Ploughe
...law.' The inadequacy of these assignments to meet the requirements of our rules is so patent it requires no comment. See, Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548; Tidwell v. Riggs, 70 Ariz. 417, 222 P.2d 795; Meloy v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 72 Ariz. 406, 236 P.2d 732; and the ......