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.

Wright v. Leyda

Supreme Court of Arizona

June 7, 1948

WRIGHT et al.
v.
LEYDA et al

Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Edwin Beauchamp, Judge.

Order granting new trial reversed, and judgment of dismissal reinstated.

Evo De Concini, Atty. Gen., and Perry M. Ling, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Frank W. Beer and Curtis E. Weland, both of Phoenix, for appellees.

Stanford, Chief Justice. LaPrade and Udall, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Stanford, Chief Justice.

Page 442

The San Marcos Hotel Company, of Chandler, Arizona, filed its application before the Arizona Corporation Commission for a certificate authorizing the transportation of its guests and their baggage from the railroad station or airport to the hotel and for the rental of chauffeur driven cars for hotel guests in Chandler, Arizona, and vicinity. (Seasonal operation from December 1 to May 1 each year.)

The opinion and order issued by the Commission under date of October 21, 1946 in part reads:

"The matter came on for hearing before the Commission, October 14, 1946, at which time the evidence adduced was sufficient to justify the granting of this application with the stipulation that the rental of [67 Ariz. 242] chauffeur driven cars for hotel guests be deleted from the certificate.

"It Is Therefore Ordered that the application herein be and the same is hereby granted with the above stipulation."

The appellees who opposed the granting of the certificate referred to, on November 14, 1946, filed before the Commission a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the Commission.

Thereafter an action was commenced, as authorized under Sec. 69-249, A.C.A.1939, in the Superior Court asking that the order of the Commission be adjudged void and illegal and be vacated and set aside. Following the filing of the complaint, appellants filed a motion to dismiss upon the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, action on which was deferred. December 30, 1946, the appellants filed their answer to the complaint.

One of the allegations of the complaint was: "That said entitled application was set down for hearing and thereafter on the 21st day of October, 1946, the Arizona Corporation Commission, by its decision No. 16760, granted a certificate of public ...


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.