Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State Consol. Pub. Co. v. Hill

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 9, 1931

STATE CONSOLIDATED PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Corporation and a Taxpayer of the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona, Appellant,
v.
BEN C. HILL, as City Attorney of Said City of Tucson, FRANK J. CORDIS, F. E. GERLACH, W. H. HART, E. D. ROCKWELL, P. M. ELIAS and GEORGE L. REID, as Councilmen of Said City of Tucson, C. E. PEQUIGNOT, as City Auditor of Said City of Tucson, and W. A. JULIAN, as Mayor of Said City of Tucson, Appellees

On motion for rehearing on appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Ordered that the judgment be modified by striking therefrom name of C. E. Pequignot as judgment debtor. Rehearing denied.

For original opinion, see ante, p. 21, 3 P.2d 525.

Messrs. Linn & Allen, for Appellant.

Mr. Ben C. Hill, in pro. per. and for All Appellees.

OPINION

[39 Ariz. 164] ROSS, J.

Appellee Hill has filed a motion for rehearing in which he says our decision "is apparently based upon a misapprehension of the record, particularly with reference to the issues presented by the pleadings and the theory upon which the case was tried in the lower court."

Appellee is his own attorney, and in his motion we think has well demonstrated that his client has a very pugnacious, persistent, fearless, and zealous lawyer; also that the lawyer has a client who devoutly believes he is right in this litigation. Acting in this dual capacity, it is evident that the client's zeal has entirely eclipsed the sound judgment of the lawyer, and that the latter is looking too much through the glasses of the former, and not enough through the glasses of the counselor and adviser.

With all due respect to both client and lawyer, we did not misapprehend the record, or the issues, or the theory upon which the case was tried in the lower court.

These facts are indubitable, and appear in the record: That the city of Tucson is a municipal corporation; that during the years 1928 and 1929 appellee was its city attorney; that his salary was $4,200 per year; that the city annually budgeted that amount, and no more, to that office; that appellee was appointed such city attorney some five times, each time for a term of two years. We quote trial questions to appellee and his answers thereto, as follows:

"Q. You are at present City Attorney of the City of Tucson, are you? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. How long have you been City Attorney, Mr. Hill? A. Since 1921, January. I am serving my tenth year now.

[39 Ariz. 165] "Q. You are finishing your fifth term then as City Attorney, is that a fact? A. Right. * * * * * * * * * * *

"Q. Mr. Hill, in the month of January, 1927, were you then appointed City Attorney of the City of Tucson? A. I was appointed in January, 1927, City Attorney of the City of Tucson by the then ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.