Yuma County, a Municipal Corporation v. Hanneman, Civil 3361

Decision Date15 January 1934
Docket NumberCivil 3361
Citation42 Ariz. 561,28 P.2d 622
PartiesYUMA COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. E. L. HANNEMAN, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Henry C. Kelly, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr Glenn Copple and Mr. A. J. Eddy, for Appellant.

Mr William H. Westover, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

This is an appeal by Yuma county, hereinafter called defendant from a judgment in favor of E. L. Hanneman, hereinafter called plaintiff. The facts necessary for the determination of the appeal are not seriously in question and may be stated as follows:

Plaintiff on October 19, 1932, filed his complaint for goods, wares and merchandise which he alleged his assignor had sold to Yuma county. Summons was duly issued and served upon defendant on the 20th of October. No appearance or answer was made by defendant up to the 12th of November, and on that date a default was regularly entered by the clerk of the superior court of Yuma county. Thereafter and on the seventeenth day of November evidence in support of his complaint was presented to the court by plaintiff and a judgment rendered in his favor on November 18th. On the same day, but shortly after the rendition of the judgment, defendant moved to set aside the default and judgment entered thereon and tendered a demurrer and answer. The motion was denied, whereupon defendant filed a motion for new trial, and after it was overruled this appeal was taken.

No objection is made to the action of the trial court in refusing to set aside the default and judgment and permit defendant to answer, and we must assume that its action in that respect is admitted by defendant to have been correct.

There are some seven assignments of error, but on the state of the record as above set forth there are but two questions for our consideration. The first is whether or not the complaint states a cause of action against Yuma county, and the second is whether, if it does, the evidence supports the judgment rendered. If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, the judgment must be sustained. If either one of them requires a negative reply, it should be reversed. The complaint is on two causes of action and is somewhat lengthy, but, in order to consider the questions presented, we need merely summarize it. It sets up in substance, in addition to formal matters, that the defendant Yuma county, at various times specified in the complaint, purchased from plaintiff's assignor, the Service Laboratories of St. Joseph, Missouri, various goods, wares and merchandise at an agreed price which were duly delivered to defendant and retained and used by it. Some of these separate sales were in value more than $100, some amounted to less. It further states that the Service Laboratories within the time required by statute presented to the clerk of the board of supervisors its verified demand for the amount of the purchase price agreed upon for each item, and, after setting up various reasons for delay in the action of the board on part of the claims, alleges that finally each and all of them were disallowed.

It is urged by appellant that, where it is necessary to present a claim against a county for allowance before suit can be brought thereon, the complaint in such suit must allege the presentation of a valid claim within the time prescribed, show that it is itemized and verified in the manner provided by statute, and that the original contract was entered into strictly in conformity with law.

We have held in the case of Yavapai County v. O'Neill, 3 Ariz. 363, 29 P. 430, that no action will lie against a county on a claim until after it is presented for allowance. Section 781, Revised Code 1928, sets forth the manner in which a demand for a claim against a county shall be made in the following language:

"§ 781. Demand for claim against county. No payment shall be made from the treasury of the county except upon demand duly presented and allowed. Every person having a claim against a county, shall, within six months after the last item of the account accrues, present a demand therefor, in writing, to the board of supervisors of the county against which such claim or demand is held, verified by the affidavit of himself or agent, stating minutely what the claim is for, and specifying each item and the date and amount thereof, and that the claim and each item thereof is justly due. The board shall not consider any claim unless such demand therefor is presented within such time. Compensation due to jurors and witnesses, and official salaries shall be paid without the presentation of such claim."

From this it will be seen that the demand must (a) be presented within six months after its last item accrues; (b) be in writing; (c) verified by the claimant or his agent; (d) state minutely what the claim is for; (e) specify each item and the date and amount thereof; and (f) state that the claim and each item is justly due. The statute does not require any reference to how the original contract was made. The allegations of the complaint are, so far as each particular demand is concerned, that (a) the defendant purchased and used the goods in question; (b) that they consist of certain specifically described articles; (c) that the purchase price was a stated amount for each item; and (d) that the written demand, duly presented to the clerk within the time fixed by the statute, was verified. The usual rule is that, when a judgment is rendered upon a default so that no demurrers, pleadings or answers have been filed against it, even though it might have been obnoxious to a specific or even to a general demurrer, if its direct averments reasonably imply the facts necessary to state a cause of action, the pleadings will be considered sufficient and will be liberally construed. Crawford v. Pierse et al., 56 Mont. 371, 185 P. 315; Aid v. Bowerman, 132 Wash. 319, 232 P. 297. We think that under this rule an allegation setting up in detail the items for which claim is made, and that a verified demand was properly presented within the statutory time, should and will be construed as in substance an allegation that the demand was sufficient in form, in the absence of any timely objection to the pleading. Such being the case, the complaint did state a cause of action against the defendant county.

The next question is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment. The only evidence received by the trial court was signed orders for part of the goods which were attached to the bills of lading therefor, and, in regard to the other items, a letter to plaintiff's assignor from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Corbin
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 2, 1988
    ...Eloy, 145 Ariz. 335, 701 P.2d 593 (App.1985). But see Town of Holbrook v. Girand, 52 Ariz. 291, 80 P.2d 695 (1938); Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561, 28 P.2d 622 (1934); County of Greenlee v. Webster, 30 Ariz. 245, 246 P. 543 (1926). Nevertheless, the Attorney General has cited no auth......
  • State for Use of Russell County v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ga.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1959
    ...v. Liberty County, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 669; Capital Bridge Co. v. County of Saunders, 164 Neb. 304, 83 N.W.2d 18; Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561, 28 P.2d 622; Gamewell Company v. City of Phoenix, 9 Cir., 216 F.2d 928, We are of the opinion that the rule of the cases last cited a......
  • Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2004
    ...entitled to recover quantum meruit damages for services rendered under illegal municipal contract); Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561, 567-69, 28 P.2d 622, 624-25 (1934) (affirming damages award under quantum meruit doctrine for sale of goods to county even though competitive bid provis......
  • Palmcroft Development Co. v. City of Phoenix
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1935
    ... ... 200 PALMCROFT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a Municipal orporation, Appellee Civil No. 3458 Supreme Court of Arizona September 30, ... a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ... Maricopa. Fred W. Fickett, Judge ... In ... Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561, 28 ... P.2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT