Tidwell v. Riggs
| Decision Date | 10 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 5185,5185 |
| Citation | 70 Ariz. 417,222 P.2d 795 |
| Parties | TIDWELL v. RIGGS et al. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
J. D. Merrill and Fred V. Moore, of Phoenix, for appellant.
Laney & Laney, of Phoenix, for appellees Riggses.
Carl Tenney and Chas. Rogers, of Phoenix, for appellees Kights.
Appellant, Ireta Blake Tidwell, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought an action for conversion against all of the defendants-appellees named in the foregoing title. She alleged that the defendants had converted to their own use 196 tons of hay purchased by her from defendants Riggses and that as a result she had been damaged to the extent of $4312. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of all the defendants and against the plaintiff. However, Ben Riggs and Myrtle Riggs, his wife, were the only defendants who had a judgment entered in their favor on the verdict.
This appeal was taken from (a) said judgment, (b) a denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside verdict and judgment, (c) a denial for judgment in accordance with plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, and (d) a denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Counsel for defendants A. L. Kight et ux. and Jess Kight et ux. have moved to dismiss the appeal as to them, the reason being that as to them no judgment had been entered on the verdict. This motion is well taken for it is fundamental that an appeal will lie only where a final judgment has been entered. Consequently, as to these defendants, the appeal must be dismissed.
Plaintiff's assignments of error read as follows:
'1. The court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the trial.
'2. The court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment in accordance with plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict.
'3. The court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
.
The rules of this court governing appeals have remained substantially the same for nearly half a century. The pertinent ones as to assignments of error, applicable in the instant case, are Rules VI and X, Rules of the Supreme Court.
Rule VI, Briefs and Arguments, states in part:
'2. The appellant's opening brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated: * * *
'(d) The assignments of error relied upon.'
Rule X, Assignment of Error, so far as applicable, provides:
'1. All assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon and the particular ruling complained of. If the particular ruling complained of has been embodied in a motion for new trial, with other rulings, or in any motion, or in a statement of facts, or otherwise in the record, it must nevertheless be referred to in the assignments of error, or it will be deemed to be waived.
'2. If the assignment of error be that the court overruled a motion for new trial and the motion is based on more than one ground the same will not be considered as distinct and specific by this Court unless each ground is specially and distinctly stated in the assignments of error.
'3. Any objection to the ruling or action of the court below will be deemed waived in this Court unless it have been assigned as error in the manner above provided.
The inadequacy of plaintiff's assignments of error, when tested by these rules, is patent. None of the assignments even approximately complies therewith. We have pointedly reminded the members of the bar, time and time again, of the necessity of complying with the rules laid down by this court, and we have not hesitated to raise the insufficiency of the assignments, as here, upon 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, 45 Ariz. 548, 46 P.2d 638; Collins v. Collins, 46 Ariz. 485, 52 P.2d 1169; American Coarse Gold Corp. v. Young, 46 Ariz. 511, 52 P.2d 1181; Keefe v. Jacobo, 47 Ariz. 162, 54 P.2d 270; Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, H. & A. Ass'n, 48 Ariz. 521, 63 P.2d 203; Bender v. Bender, 49 Ariz. 72, 64 P.2d 818; City of Phoenix v. Parker, 49 Ariz. 382, 67 P.2d 226; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Sandoval, 50 Ariz. 59, 68 P.2d 960; Gold v. Killeen, 50 Ariz. 126, 69 P.2d 800; Wood v. Ford, 50 Ariz. 356, 72 P.2d 423; Merryman v. Sears, 50 Ariz. 412, 72 P.2d 943; Patterson v. Connolly, 51 Ariz. 443, 77 P.2d 813; Wilburn v. Reitman, 54 Ariz. 31, 91...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hollis
...Most of them do not specify the particular ruling or action which is complained of and therefore cannot be considered. Tidwell v. Riggs, 70 Ariz. 417, 222 P.2d 795 (1950); Rules of Supreme Court 5(c), 17 A.R.S. Those assignments which do point out the ruling of the court are defective in th......
-
Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 5372
...it would seem that by now it should be known by all its members that a compliance with the rules is mandatory. See Tidwell v. Riggs, 1950, 70 Ariz. 417, 222 P.2d 795, where the previous cases on this point are collected. Since the rendition of that opinion we have refused to consider defect......
-
Porter v. Ploughe
...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 cases therein Secondly, if the appeal is to b......
-
Butler v. Van Sant
...Armstrong v. Armstrong, 71 Ariz. 275, 226 P.2d 168. For a collection of earlier cases so ruling on this latter point see Tidwell v. Riggs, 70 Ariz. 417, 222 P.2d 795; and Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548. The purpose of these rules is not to unduly restrict parties who appeal fr......