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.

Yancy v. Jeffreys

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 7, 1932

WILLIAM R. YANCY and MATTIE M. YANCY, Husband and Wife, Appellants,
v.
J. R. JEFFREYS, Appellee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. William F. Timmons, for Appellants.

Mr. R. C. Bennett, for Appellee.

OPINION

Page 775

[39 Ariz. 564] LOCKWOOD, J.

J. R. Jeffreys, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against William R. Yancy and Mattie M. Yancy, husband and wife, hereinafter called defendants, on a promissory note for $200, executed by the latter in favor of the former. The case was tried before the court sitting with a jury, but, after both parties had presented their evidence, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the note, with interest, attorney's fees, and costs, and from the order overruling the motion for new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict defendants have appealed.

There is but one question before us for consideration, and that is whether upon the evidence as submitted to the court it was justified in directing a verdict. This evidence, taken in the strongest manner [39 Ariz. 565] in behalf of defendants as we must take it under the circumstances, may be stated as follows:

Plaintiff had purchased certain farm implements from E. F. Sanguinetti under the usual conditional sales contract, paying a certain amount down and giving notes for the balance, the title to the property remaining in Sanguinetti until it was fully paid for. Plaintiff offered to sell his equity therein to defendant Yancy, the latter to assume the payment of the remaining installments due on the implements, and to give plaintiff for his equity the note involved in this action. The balance of the payments to Sanguinetti were about to become due, and Yancy felt that he was unable to meet such payments at that time, so simultaneously with the execution of the note the following written agreement was signed by plaintiff:

"Sept. 18, 1928.

"For one farmall tractor

"For one tantam disk

"For one 8 ft. tractor mower

"For one tractor fresno

"We are to pay $195.00 Oct. 15, 1928, and $200.00 Oct. 15, 1929 with 8 ...


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.