Wood v. Ford, Civil 3834
| Decision Date | 11 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | Civil 3834 |
| Citation | 50 Ariz. 356,72 P.2d 423 |
| Parties | ERNEST J. WOOD and DELLA WOOD, His Wife, Appellants, v. SAM FORD and MAE E. FORD, Husband and Wife, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. J. C. Niles, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr Edward Everett Ingels, for Appellants.
Mr George F. Macdonald, for Appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree canceling a deed to real estate and awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Sam Ford and Mae E. Ford, husband and wife, were the owners of lot 23, block 2, Willibi subdivision, Phoenix, and the defendants, Ernest J. Wood and Della Wood, husband and wife were the owners of the south half of the northeast quarter of section 18, township 8 north, range 11 west, M.D.M., county of Sonoma, state of California, and on October 4, 1934, these parties agreed to exchange such properties, and later, on November 13, 1934, consummated such agreement by exchanging deeds.
On May 18, 1935, the plaintiffs brought this action for a rescission and for damages, alleging, in substance, that defendants had knowingly misrepresented the California land and improvements thereon; that the representations were false and fraudulent and made with the intention to deceive and defraud plaintiffs; that plaintiffs believed the representations to be true and relying thereon, without going to California to inspect the land, made the exchange. Plaintiffs in their complaint tendered to the defendants a deed reconveying the California property to them.
E.E. Ingels was made a party defendant on the ground that he assisted defendants in making the exchange of properties, but the court dismissed him from the action for insufficiency of evidence.
The defendants demurred to the complaint, specially on the ground of defective parties defendant and generally on the ground of insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Their answer proper consists of admissions and denials.
The case was tried to a jury to which was submitted a number of special interrogatories. The jury's answers to the interrogatories were all in favor of plaintiffs. The court adopted the findings of the jury and made other findings and entered judgment thereon canceling plaintiffs' deed to defendants and directing defendants to execute and tender to plaintiffs a deed of reconveyance of said not 23; also awarded damages, in accordance with the jury's verdict, as follows: Compensatory in the sum of $225 and punitive in the sum of $225.
The defendants have appealed and assigned twenty-two alleged errors of the court as reasons why the judgment should be reversed. It would serve no purpose to set forth such reasons in full but would needlessly lengthen this opinion and encumber the reports. We give samples to illustrate how completely they ignore the rules of this court as also the many decisions of the court holding such assignments wholly insufficient:
The other assignments were no better.
That these assignments do not comply with the rules, and that similar assignments have been many, many times condemned by the court, it seems counsel should know. We cite a few of such cases. Thornburg v. Frye, 44 Ariz. 282, 36 P.2d 548; Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn., 48 Ariz. 521, 63 P.2d 203; Bender v. Bender, 49 Ariz. 72, 64 P.2d 818.
Appellants' assignment No. 1 is: "The Superior Court erred in overruling defendants' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tidwell v. Riggs
...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,......
-
Golden Eagle-Bobtail Mines, Inc. v. Valley National Bank, Civil 4557
...548; Ferrell v. Mutual Benefit, H. & A. Ass'n, 48 Ariz. 521, 63 P.2d 203; Miller v. Kearnes, 45 Ariz. 548, 551, 46 P.2d 638; Wood v. Ford, 50 Ariz. 356, 72 P.2d 423; Bender v. Bender, 49 Ariz. 72, 64 P.2d The case of Walker v. Smith, 39 N.M. 148, 42 P.2d 768, 769, quite well lays down the e......
-
Cullison v. Pride O'Texas Citrus Ass'n
...1081. (Emphasis in original.) While a direct affirmative allegation of all essentials sentials of fraud is not necessary, Wood v. Ford, 50 Ariz. 356, 72 P.2d 423, a failure to prove any one of the elements would be fatal to any case sounding in fraud. Indeed, the proof must be clear and con......
-
Jamison v. Southern States Life Ins. Co.
...898 (1960). However, it has also been held that a direct affirmative allegation of the right to rely is not necessary. Wood v. Ford, 50 Ariz. 356, 72 P.2d 423 (1937). In the Wood case, as here, there was no affirmative allegation of the right to rely and the court said: 'As to whether a com......