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.

Hassenpflug v. Jones

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 26, 1958

Paula HASSENPFLUG, Appellant,
v.
David L. JONES and Helen G. Jones, husband and wife, Appellees.

[84 Ariz. 34] John A. Metheany, Phoenix, for appellant.

Shute & Elsing, Phoenix, for appellees.

UDALL, Chief Justice.

The action below was based on two claims for relief. The first on assumpsit and the second for damages resulting from fraud in the transaction. The trial court, sitting without a jury, made findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining plaintiffs on both theories. This appeal by defendant, Paula Hassenpflug, from the money judgment for $12,360 together with interest and costs entered against her and in favor of plaintiffs (appellees) David L. Jones and Helen G. Jones, husband and wife, followed. The parties will be referred to herein either by their names or as plaintiffs and defendant. A supersedeas bond was given to stay execution.

Inasmuch as the assignments of error attack the findings of fact and conclusions of law the same are herein set forth.

'Findings of Fact

'I

'That plaintiffs and defendant are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona. The defendant is a real estate broker licensed under the laws of Arizona.

'II

'On January 1, 1955 the plaintiffs were the owners of two promissory notes, one in the sum of $4,000 and the other in the sum of $6,000. These notes were secured by real estate mortgages.

'III

'The plaintiffs assigned the notes and mortgages to the plaintiff [sic defendant] for the purpose of having her, as their agent, collect the sums owing on the notes. That without accounting for the notes and mortgages, she converted them on January 1, 1955 to her own use, and has given the plaintiffs no consideration for them.

Page 297

'IV

'Over a period of time the plaintiffs loaned the defendant $3,500. Prior to March 15, 1955 the defendant repaid [84 Ariz. 35] $2,500. On March 15, 1955 she owed the plaintiffs $1,000 on account of said loans, none of which has been repaid.

'V

'That pursuant to a scheme to convert the said notes and mortgages, and to conceal such action from the plaintiffs, the defendant induced the plaintiffs to enter into a contract to purchase property from one Fletcher. That said Fletcher was, in fact, the defendant; that the defendant at the time of the negotiations was purporting to purchase the property (Canary Court) under the name of Fletcher for a sum which was substantially less than the price for which it was to be sold to the plaintiffs, thus attempting to make a secret profit to offset the amount of said notes. That these facts were not disclosed to the plaintiffs.

'The defendant knew that her representations to the plaintiffs were false and that they were relied upon and acted upon by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not know that the representations ...


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.