H. W. FAHRENBRINK and GERTRUDE L. FAHRENBRINK, His Wife, Appellants,
GRANVILLE MOORE, Appellee
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr. Fred L. Ingraham and Mr. Mercer Hemperley, for Appellants.
Mr. R. C. Bennett, for Appellee.
[51 Ariz. 177] ROSS, J.
This is an appeal by H. W. Fahrenbrink and Gertrude L. Fahrenbrink, his wife, from an order denying their motion to vacate a judgment.
Appellants have not complied with the rules of this court in their briefs and arguments, in that they have not made a concise statement of the ultimate facts or of the contentions of the parties as made by their pleadings, and have not made any assignments of error. Rules VII and XII. After stating in their opening brief what they are appealing from, appellants proceed:
"There are only two major questions to be considered in determining the merits of this appeal, -- both being questions of law which appear from an examination [51 Ariz. 178] of the pleadings and the record. Briefly stated, these two questions are:
"1. Is the judgment of October 7, 1936, or the judgment of January 15, 1937, the final and only existing judgment in the case?
"2. Did the court have jurisdiction to enter or render either of said judgments?"
Accepting this statement of theirs as an assignment of error, let us see where it leads. In the first place, there is but one judgment in the record. It was entered October 7, 1936, and thereafter, on January 25, 1937, it was amended. If error was made in allowing the judgment to be
amended, it is not assigned as error. However, question No. 1 is not based upon the facts, and is very misleading. There is, as stated above, but one judgment, and that is the amended one; and since no legal objection is urged against it we assume it was properly entered originally properly amended thereafter.
As to question No. 2, if the court did not have jurisdiction to enter the judgment or to amend it, appellants have not told us wherein.
Their pleadings consisted of general and special demurrers to the complaint and a motion to make more definite and certain. On motion these were stricken as sham pleadings. Whether the court erred in striking these pleadings or not we are not called upon to determine. The ruling ...