The case B.W.L. Sam v. State concerned whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to vacate or set aside a judgment after an appeal has been perfected to the Supreme Court. The court held that the trial court correctly determined it lacked such jurisdiction. The reasoning involved reviewing prior conflicting decisions and concluding that perfecting an appeal removes the case to the appellate court, terminating the lower court's jurisdiction except for matters in furtherance of the appeal. This rule prevents potential conflicts between courts and upholds the finality of Supreme Court judgments as required by the state constitution.

procedure

The case involved a dispute between former partners Curry and Windsor over the settlement of their partnership affairs, with Windsor alleging fraud by Curry in the agreement. The court determined that the agreement dissolved the partnership, and interpreted Windsor's cross-complaint as an action for deceit rather than rescission. It held that the proper measure of damages was the difference between the actual value of properties received and their represented value, and reversed the judgment for a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on damages.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Bertozzi suing his partner Collaso and landlord Valdrini for conversion of personal property used in their hotel partnership after Collaso abandoned the lease and turned over the property to Valdrini as liquidated damages under a lease clause. The trial court dismissed the action, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court held that one partner cannot maintain an action at law against a copartner for partnership matters, including conversion of firm property, without first obtaining a full accounting and settlement of the partnership's affairs and debts, as a partner's interest is only an undivided share subject to liabilities. Because no such accounting had occurred and the complaint did not allege one, Bertozzi had no individual cause of action against Collaso, and thus none against Valdrini either, even if collusion was shown.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability