Alfred C. Lockwood

The case involved the State of Arizona suing Phoenix Savings Bank & Trust Co. to recover unclaimed bank deposits under sections 51-517 et seq. of the Arizona Code 1939 (as amended), which provided that deposits inactive for over 20 years would escheat to the state. The bank defended on grounds that the statute was unconstitutional for violating due process and contract clauses. The court affirmed judgment for the bank, holding the statute invalid because it did not require any judicial determination of the owner's death and intestacy without heirs, with notice to interested parties, before requiring payment to the state. Instead, the statute allowed the superintendent to demand payment from the bank and authorized suit solely on the bank's refusal, bypassing the core jurisdictional facts required for escheat.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over taxes assessed on land that plaintiff Nelssen had entered as a federal homestead but which was included in Electrical District No. 4 before he received a patent; after the land was sold for unpaid state, county, school, and district taxes, Nelssen sued to declare the district inclusion and all taxes void, obtain an exemption as a veteran, and quiet title. The trial court dismissed most claims under the tax contest statute requiring payment before challenging validity but allowed litigation over whether the land was properly added to the district. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the district lacked jurisdiction to include the land at organization because it remained federal property and no later statutory procedure was followed to add it, rendering district taxes invalid, while affirming that other tax challenges were barred by nonpayment. The court therefore affirmed the judgment except to the extent it refused injunctive relief against future district levies and remanded for entry of that injunction.

taxespropertyfederal powerprocedure

In Brooks v. Brooks, the plaintiff wife sued her husband for separate maintenance under an Arizona statute allowing such actions when a husband deserts the wife or other grounds for absolute divorce exist. After the plaintiff presented her evidence at trial, the court discharged the jury and entered judgment for the defendant on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the claim and lacked required corroboration. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that this was an equitable action in which the trial court could properly decide the case without a jury when no material factual disputes existed, and that the evidence, even taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not establish a legal right to separate maintenance.

family lawprocedure

The case involved L. L. Hull, who was convicted by a jury in Maricopa County of receiving stolen goods, specifically a cooler stolen from another individual, and sentenced to prison. Hull appealed, claiming the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew the goods were stolen, that certain exhibits were improperly admitted, and that the county attorney's misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence—including the unusual manner of acquisition, concealment of the property, false statements about its source, and possession of other stolen items—sufficiently supported the jury's finding of guilty knowledge. The court also ruled that the exhibits of other stolen property were admissible to show knowledge, and that the trial conduct did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hughes v. Union Oil Co. of Arizona, plaintiffs sued the defendant oil company and others for the value of trade fixtures removed from real property they claimed to own since 1935, plus resulting damage, alleging the removal violated their rights after a prior lease without a removal reservation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, relying on a prior judgment in a separate action (Ray v. Mosher) that purported to establish the plaintiffs held no ownership interest in the property as of 1939. The trial court granted the motion, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prior judgment could not conclusively establish title against the plaintiffs because ownership was not directly litigated between them and the other party in that collateral proceeding by a third party seeking a lien; thus a genuine issue of material fact remained on ownership, precluding summary judgment under the applicable rules.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the burglary convictions of Donald Peters and Herb Bechtel in Maricopa County after a joint trial with Clarence Hammons, who pleaded guilty and testified for the state. Defendants appealed, claiming error in the denial of their motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (including unsworn statements and affidavits about witness credibility and fingerprints) and in the trial court's refusal to allow broader cross-examination of Hammons about other crimes. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the new evidence lacked proper supporting affidavits or was insufficient to make a different verdict probable, that the superior court lost jurisdiction over a supplemental motion filed after the appeal was perfected, and that the offer of proof on cross-examination was not explicit enough to show error.

criminal lawprocedure