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.

Hughes v. Young

Supreme Court of Arizona

December 15, 1941

H. B. HUGHES and COIT I. HUGHES, Appellants,
v.
KATIE F. YOUNG, Appellee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Arthur T. LaPrade, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. E. E. Selden, for Appellants.

Messrs. Townsend, Jenckes & Wildman, for Appellee.

OPINION

Page 397

[58 Ariz. 351] LOCKWOOD, C.J.

Katie F. Young, called plaintiff, brought suit against H. B. Hughes, called defendant, and her husband Coit I. Hughes, to quiet title to certain premises described in the complaint. Defendant answered claiming a superior interest in the property by reason of a certain judgment obtained against H. L. Mosher at a time when the latter was the owner of the premises. Plaintiff replied alleging that the judgment lien of defendant had been extinguished by reason of her redemption of certain other property of Mosher's from a foreclosure sale, the property thus redeemed being of far greater value than the amount paid for redemption, plus the judgment lien of defendant and any other liens against such property redeemed, and further that her judgment lien, if it was not extinguished by reason of the redemption as aforesaid, was barred by a certain judgment of the superior court of Maricopa County.

The case came on for hearing before the court sitting without a jury. Oral and documentary evidence was introduced by both plaintiff and defendant, whereupon judgment was rendered for plaintiff as prayed in her complaint, for costs and $75 attorney's fees, whereupon this appeal was taken.

One of the objections is that there is not sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court. The reporter's transcript and part of the documentary evidence, which were before the lower court, were not made a part of the record on appeal. We have held repeatedly that in such case we will not consider an objection that the evidence does not sustain the judgment, unless the record shows [58 Ariz. 352] affirmatively that certain facts exist which, as a matter of law, would make the judgment rendered erroneous. Arizona Land & Stock Co. v. Markus, 37 Ariz. 530, 296 P. 251; Gay v. City of Glendale, 41 Ariz. 207, 16 P.2d 971.

Defendant has asked that we have the record corrected, under section 21-1826, Arizona Code 1939, by having certified to this court the record of the renewal of the judgment obtained by her against Mosher and renewed under date of November 13, 1939, and

"further that the said clerk obtain and file a certified copy of the record of the renewal of the judgment in said cause as the same appears in the Office of the Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 2, of Judgments, at pages 142 & 143,..."

The section referred to reads, so far as material, as follows:

"Power of court to correct record. --... If anything material to either party is omitted from the record on appeal by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the superior court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court, on a proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement shall be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record shall be certified and transmitted by the clerk of the superior court."

This is a provision of the new rules, which was intended to obviate the necessity of a judgment being affirmed on account of the fact that a complete record of the proceedings in the lower court was not before this court when, if such record was brought up, it would show that the judgment should be reversed. The rule is obviously in the interest of justice and to prevent affirmance due to the inadvertence of counsel in completing their record in this court, and should be liberally [58 Ariz. 353] construed. But there are limits to its ...


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.