Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 4974
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | Udall, Justice. |
| Citation | 66 Ariz. 205,185 P.2d 778 |
| Docket Number | 4974 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1947 |
| Parties | WILKINSON v. TAKESUYE et al |
185 P.2d 778
66 Ariz. 205
WILKINSON
v.
TAKESUYE et al
No. 4974
Supreme Court of Arizona
October 20, 1947
Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; M. T. Phelps, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. H. Glenn and Kenneth C. Chatwin, both of Phoenix, for appellant.
Jennings & Tenney, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Udall, Justice. Stanford, C. J., and LaPrade, J., concur.
OPINION
Udall, Justice.
[66 Ariz. 206] This suit, tried by the court sitting without a jury, involved a dispute between Frank Wilkinson Jr. and Harold Takesuye, two rival claimants in an interpleader action, over $ 1,050, the proceeds of a fire insurance policy admittedly owed by the Glens Falls Insurance Company, intervenor herein. The fire occurring March 3, 1946 destroyed a packing shed which the Company had insured.
The proceeding was initiated by Wilkinson in order to recover a private debt owing him by one Woodrow Wilson Johns, formerly in business with Takesuye. The debt grew out of three promissory notes executed and delivered by Johns on December 1, 1944 to Wilkinson aggregating, with [66 Ariz. 207] interest and attorney's fees, $ 1,143. Wilkinson [185 P.2d 779] recovered judgment against Johns for this amount in the trial court, Johns failing to appear and answer, and from this judgment there is no appeal. The actual dispute in the case is whether or not Johns had any interest in the check from the Glens Falls Insurance Company (made payable to Johns, Takesuye, and the latter's attorneys, Jennings and Tenney) which Wilkinson garnished in hands of the local agent of the insurance company. The insurance company intervened, had the check in question deposited with the clerk of the court, and asked that the various claimants be required to interplead. The case now before us represents Wilkinson's appeal from the action of the trial court in quashing his writ of garnishment made necessary by its finding that Johns had no interest in the insurance proceeds.
Early in 1946 Johns and Takesuye entered into an oral agreement to form a partnership under the name of Western Farmers' Distributors, the purpose of which was to engage in the vegetable shipping business. It was agreed that each would advance $ 5,000 capital and that in due time the business would be incorporated. The shipping shed in question was acquired by the two men on February 10, 1946 who also took an assignment of the fire insurance policy from the former owner. Johns being unable to raise his portion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, No. 7589
...Sanders v. Brown, 73 Ariz. 116, 238 P.2d 941. We are not bound by the conclusions of law made by the trial court, Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d 778; Daily Mines Co. v. Control Mines, Inc., 59 Ariz. 138, 124 P.2d 324. In Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2......
-
Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co., No. 5446
...We have consistently held that the supreme court is not bound by conclusions of law reached by the trial court. Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d 778. Therefore the above proposition of law upon which the court in part bases the majority opinion is It is further my view that man......
-
Cope v. Southern Pac. Co., 4929
...Southern Pacific Company and Smith had moved for a directed verdict, counsel for defendant Jarvis moved that the complaint be dismissed [66 Ariz. 205] as to Jarvis upon the ground that there was no evidence to show any negligence on his part. The court then granted the motion of defendant J......
-
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sakrison, No. 5236
...facts. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 4 P.2d 369; Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d The gist of the company's first ten assignments of error is that the trial court erred in affirming the action of the commission in the p......
-
Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, No. 7589
...Sanders v. Brown, 73 Ariz. 116, 238 P.2d 941. We are not bound by the conclusions of law made by the trial court, Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d 778; Daily Mines Co. v. Control Mines, Inc., 59 Ariz. 138, 124 P.2d 324. In Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2......
-
Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co., No. 5446
...We have consistently held that the supreme court is not bound by conclusions of law reached by the trial court. Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d 778. Therefore the above proposition of law upon which the court in part bases the majority opinion is It is further my view that man......
-
Cope v. Southern Pac. Co., 4929
...Southern Pacific Company and Smith had moved for a directed verdict, counsel for defendant Jarvis moved that the complaint be dismissed [66 Ariz. 205] as to Jarvis upon the ground that there was no evidence to show any negligence on his part. The court then granted the motion of defendant J......
-
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sakrison, No. 5236
...facts. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 4 P.2d 369; Wilkinson v. Takesuye, 66 Ariz. 205, 185 P.2d The gist of the company's first ten assignments of error is that the trial court erred in affirming the action of the commission in the p......