Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Hilvert
Decision Date | 18 October 1943 |
Docket Number | Civil 4551 |
Citation | 142 P.2d 411,60 Ariz. 537 |
Parties | WESTERN COAL & MINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. FRED G. HILVERT, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.
Messrs Ellinwood & Ross, and Mr. Jos. S. Jenckes, Jr., for Appellant.
Messrs Armstrong, Kramer, Morrison & Roche, for Appellee.
Appellant sued to recover on three notes amounting to $237,833.97, together with interest and attorneys' fees, except the sum of $166.03 credited on said amount.
Appellee pleads the statute of limitations.
The notes, together with certain certificates of stock given as security, were sold and assigned to this appellant by the previous owner.
The notes were dated Cincinnati, December 10, 1932, Cincinnati, December 12, 1932, St. Louis, January 3, 1933, and the complaint, which was filed here September 25, 1941, alleged that on December 20, 1938, appellee, in writing, acknowledged the justness of the indebtedness and impliedly promised to pay the notes, and appellant submitted an exhibit in reference to the said promise in writing by appellee as follows:
By appellee's answer he admitted he execution of the notes and the execution of the Exhibit "D," but denied that he acknowledged the justness of his indebtedness to the plaintiff by the execution of the same. He also denied that he implied, or promised to pay he notes, and alleged that the notes were executed without the State of Arizona; that the $15,000 note dated December 10, 1932, accrued January 2, 1934; the note for $10,000 dated December 12, 1932, accrued January 2, 1934 and the note for $213,000 dated January 3, 1933, accrued January 3, 1934, and the action not having been commenced until more than four years thereafter, that they were barred by the provisions of Section 29-204 or 29-206, Arizona Code Annotated 1939.
Aside from the original pleadings above referred to, various pleadings were filed, but we think it sufficient for the case that we refer to the appellee's amended and supplemental answer by which the execution of the notes was again admitted. Limitations were pleaded by Sections 29-204, 29-205, 29-206, Arizona Code Annotated 1939. He also pleaded that there was no consideration for the transfer of the notes to the appellant and that the acquisition of the notes by appellant was ultra vires, inasmuch as the appellant was not qualified to conduct its corporate affairs in the State of Arizona. Appellant filed a reply to appellee's amended and supplemental answer wherein it admitted its lack of qualification in the state, and admitted appellee's allegations with respect to the time of accrual of the cause of actions on the notes and the time of filing suit, and denied all other allegations, and alleged, however, that the notes were executed in the State of Arizona and set forth appellee's absences from the state as tolling the statute of limitations. The court granted the appellee's motion then made to strike the affirmative allegations and for judgment on the pleadings, and judgment on the pleadings was entered.
Coming here on appeal the appellant complains, among other things, the court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment for the reason that all material issues of fact -- the execution of the notes and letter of December 30, 1938, appellant's ownership of the notes, and the balance due thereon -- were admitted or established by affidavit, and said letter constituting an acknowledgment by appellee of his indebtedness under said notes and an implied promise to pay within four years prior to the commencement of the action, entitled appellant to judgment as a matter of law.
The appellant complains that appellee's alleged absences from the state tolled the statute of limitations and appellant had the right to plead such facts in its reply in avoidance of appellee's amended answer.
When the appellee on December 21, 1938, transmitted to the appellant original letter or document referred to as appellant's Exhibit "D," together with a similar one signed by his wife, he wrote George J. L. Wulff, President, Western Coal and Mining Company, 1400 Missouri Pacific Building, St. Louis, Missouri, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Diest v. Towle
...returned. Action was subsequently brought against one of the makers in Arizona (Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Hilvert, 61 Ariz. 131, 60 Ariz. 537, 142 P.2d 411), and against another maker in California. Western Coal Mining Co. v. Jones, 27 Cal.2d 819, 167 P.2d 719, 721, 164 A.L.R. 685. In bo......
-
Western Coal & Mining Company v. Hilvert
...various absences of the appellee from the state." In denying the motion for a rehearing, the court used the following language on page 413 of 142 Pac. (2d): October 18, 1943, we remanded this cause for a new trial on the issue as to whether the statute of limitations had been tolled by the ......
-
De Anza Land and Leisure Corp. v. Raineri
...(b) willingness to pay it." John W. Masury & Son v. Bisbee Lumber Co., 49 Ariz. at 466, 68 P.2d at 689. Accord, Western Coal & Mining Company, 60 Ariz. 537, 142 P.2d 411 (1943). It is necessary to have a new promise made by the debtor after the statute of limitations has run to pay that par......
-
Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Hilvert, Civil 4551
...Joe S. Jenckes, Jr., for Appellant. Messrs. Armstrong, Kramer, Morrison & Roche, for Appellee. OPINION STANFORD, J. On October 18, 1943 (60 Ariz. 537, 142 P.2d 411) we this cause for a new trial on the issue as to whether the statute of limitations had been tolled by the absences of appelle......