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.

Craft v. Cannon

Supreme Court of Arizona

January 19, 1942

M. R. CRAFT, Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of ARIZONA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO., Appellant,
v.
J. E. CANNON, Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of CANNON ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Messrs. Stockton & Karam, Mr. Eli Gorodezky and Mr. J. W. Cherry, Jr., for Appellant.

Messrs. Woolf & Shute, for Appellee.

OPINION

[58 Ariz. 458] ROSS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and awarding costs to defendant.

The action is by M. R. Craft, doing business under the firm name and style of Arizona Wholesale Electric Co., against J. E. Cannon, doing business under the firm name and style of Cannon Electric Company, and is for the agreed and reasonable value of goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered to defendant between the dates commencing August 8, 1931, and ending July 2, 1937, less payments credited thereon.

The defendant's answer consists of a general denial and a plea of the statute of limitations.

The judgment fails to show the grounds upon which the dismissal was made. Defendant's motion to dismiss, filed June 10, 1940, to which the judgment was a response, set forth three grounds for dismissal of the action:

1. Failure of plaintiff to prosecute the action with diligence, or at all.

2. Failure to furnish a bill of particulars pursuant to defendant's "Demand for Items of Account and Bill of Particulars," filed March 27, 1939.

3. Failure of plaintiff to comply with an order of the court of April 17, 1939, granting defendant's motion for a bill of particulars.

The dismissal might have been for any one or all of said grounds. We will consider the grounds together and ascertain from the record whether the dismissal was justified for the reasons asserted.

[58 Ariz. 459] The action was filed November 18, 1938. Defendant answered December 9th by general denial and the plea of limitation. The case being at issue, plaintiff filed a motion on December 14, 1938, ...


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.