Page images
PDF
EPUB

GEO. B. HENEY, Appellant, v. PIMA COUNTY, Appellee. (Civil No. 243.)

(S. C. 17 Pac. 263.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima.

Haynes & Mitchell and F. J. Heney, for Appellant.

H. R. Jeffords, Dist. Atty., for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this case we are asked to review the decision of this court in case of same title reported in 2 Ariz 257, 14 Pac. 299. We see no good reason to change the views there expressed. The county is not bound by law to pay these fees; and, to be bound by contract, must assent to it. The board, however, have power to deal with the equities of the case, so forcibly urged upon us, and it rests with them to pay for these services as they see fit. The judgment is affirmed.

Wright, C. J., and Porter and Barnes, JJ., concur.

(Opinion filed April 5, 1888.)

HENRY T. BALDRIDGE, Appellant, v. JAMES REILLY, Appellee. (Civil No. 227.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise.

Geo. G. Berry, for Appellant.

Thomas Mitchell, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. We think that the probate court erred in striking out that portion of defendant's answer to the

petition for distribution wherein there was a denial of a balance in the hands of the removed administrator, Reilly, and for that reason affirm the judgment of the District Court, holding for naught the judgment of the probate court, entered March 15, 1887.

(Opinion filed May 26, 1888.)

N. HERRICK et al., Appellants, v. WM. A. HANCOCK AND WIFE, Appellees. (Civil No. 254.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa.

Alexander and Lighthizer, for Appellants.

No appearance for Appellees.

July 2, 1888. Dismissed on motion of appellants.

[merged small][ocr errors]

ABANDONMENT. See Mines and Mining, 5; Railroads, 1.

ABSTRACT. See Appeal and Error, 1.

ACCESSORY. See Forgery, 1.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.-Where defendants deposited a sum in the
bank to be placed to plaintiff's credit when he had given a receipt
in full, and the bank passes it to the plaintiff's credit and explains
the circumstances and demands from him a receipt in full which
he refuses to give, the mere fact of plaintiff withdrawing the money
under the circumstances does not constitute a release. (Simms v.
Hampson, 233.)

ADMISSIONS. See Criminal Law, 13, 17.

ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Suit to Quiet Title, 2.

ADVERSE USER. See Irrigation, 6.

AFFIDAVITS. See Appeal and Error, 5.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. See Appeal and Error, 2.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR-ABSTRACT-PRESUMPTION-WHERE EVIDENCE
OBJECTED TO IS NOT SET FORTH IN ABSTRACT OBJECTIONS THERETO
WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.-Where the abstract does not set forth
the documents to the admission of which objection was made below
this court must presume that they were correctly received, and can-
not consider alleged error in the ruling of the trial court.
v. Ellis, 253.)

(U. S.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR-APPEAL FROM SUPREME COURT OF TERRITORY TO
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT-JUDGMENT FIXES AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY-ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1885, CITED.-The
Act of Congress of March 3, 1885, provides that "no appeal or writ
of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment
in the supreme court of any of the territories of the United States,

* *

*

« PreviousContinue »