B. C. WILBURN, Appellant,
L. REITMAN and ELIZABETH REITMAN, Husband and Wife, Appellees
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. J. Fred Hoover, for Appellant.
Mr. R. C. Bennett and Mr. Wm. H. Westover, for Appellees.
[54 Ariz. 32] ROSS, C.J.
The appellant's assignments of error are in the following words:
"1. The Court erred in rejecting evidence offered by the plaintiff.
"2. The Court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to put on his evidence.
"3. The Court erred in instructing a verdict against the plaintiff.
"4. The Court erred in over-ruling the motion for a new trial."
We have so often refused to accept assignments like these as sufficient to present any question for review that we feel we can make no exception in this case. Beebe v. State, 49 Ariz. 190, 65 P.2d 658; DeMille v. State, 43 Ariz. 551, 33 P.2d 280; Hansen v. Hansen, 26 Ariz. 292, 224 P. 826; Wootan v. Roten, 19 Ariz. 235, 168 P. 640. We regret this, not because we think there is merit in the appeal but because of the rather novel reasons suggested in the brief of counsel for appellant for his being here. The first sentence of his opening brief is as follows:
"This is an action for damages caused by defendants' failure to perform their part and then ejecting plaintiff from the premises...."
Aside from its poor construction, this sentence has an obscure meaning that no one can fathom without reading the whole record. Subdivision 2 of Rule VII of the Supreme Court provides:
[54 Ariz. 33] "2. The appellant's opening brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated:
"(a) A concise statement of the ultimate facts of the case as appellant contends them to be proved by the evidence submitted upon the trial, and material to the determination of ...