Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil And Ginning Co.
Decision Date | 18 April 1932 |
Docket Number | Civil 3150 |
Citation | 40 Ariz. 125,10 P.2d 371 |
Parties | L. C. TREADWAY and MARY P. TREADWAY, His Wife, Appellants, v. WESTERN COTTON OIL AND GINNING COMPANY, a Corporation, and PHOENIX SALES AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs Alexander, Silverthorne & Van Spanckeren, for Appellants.
Mr Charles Woolf, for Appellee Western Cotton Oil and Ginning Company.
No appearance for Appellee Phoenix Sales and Investment Company.
L. C Treadway and Mary P. Treadway, his wife, hereinafter called plaintiffs, brought suit against the defendants herein, Western Cotton Oil and Ginning Company, a corporation, and Phoenix Sales and Investment Company, a corporation, hereinafter more particularly designated respectively as the oil company and the sales company, to recover the sum of $4,380 alleged by plaintiffs to be due from the defendants as installments on a certain contract between plaintiffs and the sales company, which was by the latter assigned to the oil company. Apparently the sales company did not defend the action, but a demurrer was interposed to the complaint by the oil company, and sustained, and plaintiffs amended. A second demurrer was interposed to the amended complaint, which was also sustained, and plaintiffs electing to stand on that complaint, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant oil company, and the matter is before us now for review.
The sole question for our consideration is one of law, involving the construction of two contracts. The facts in the case, as set up in the pleadings, may be stated as follows: Plaintiffs were the owners of a half section of land in Maricopa county. On November 1, 1928; they entered into an agreement with the sales company, the material parts of which read as follows:
Upon the execution of said contract the sales company took possession of the premises.
On February 19, 1929, being heavily indebted to the oil company, it entered into an agreement with the latter, the material parts of which read as follows:
The oil company thereupon went into possession of the property involved, and farmed it for the years 1929 and 1930, and was still in possession in the spring of 1931, having paid to plaintiffs all sums becoming due under the contract of sale above set forth, up to the installment due ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franko v. Mitchell
...35, 485 P.2d 859 (1971). The contemplated benefit must be both intentional and direct. Irwin, supra, Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil Etc. Co., 40 Ariz. 125, 10 P.2d 371 (1932), and 'it must definitely appear that the parties intend to recognize the third party as the primary party in interes......
-
Bosse v. Crowell, Collier and MacMillan
...Under Arizona law, "as a general rule only the parties and privies to a contract may enforce it." Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil & Ginning Co., 40 Ariz. 125, 10 P.2d 371, 375 (1932). "(A) third person can recover on a contract to which he is not a party only if the contract reveals that the......
-
Motorola, Inc. v. Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp.
...set forth in a contract provides the exclusive remedy. Green v. Snodgrass, 79 Ariz. 319, 289 P.2d 191 (1955); Treadway v. Western Cotton, 40 Ariz. 125, 10 P.2d 371 (1932); Armstrong v. Irwin, 26 Ariz. 1, 221 P. 222, 32 A.L.R. 609 (1923); Camelback Land & Inv. Co. v. Phoenix Entertainment Co......
-
Dieter v. Scott
...v. Munro's Estate, 271 Mich. 125, 260 N.W. 135, 136; Krueger v. Campbell, 264 Mich. 449, 250 N.W. 285, 286; Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil, etc., Co., 40 Ariz. 125, 10 P.2d 371, 375; and see Smith v. Morin Bros., 233 App. Div. 562, 253 N.Y.S. 368, 370. Indeed, as Professor Williston says (2......