Archibald G. McAlister

This case was a quiet title action in which Howard Gentry sued to establish his ownership of a specific lot, claiming title under a 1941 deed from Bessie Parker, while Parker counterclaimed based on a 1942 deed she received from Gentry. The central dispute concerned whether Gentry's 1942 deed to Parker was an absolute conveyance or a conditional delivery intended only to take effect if Gentry died from his illness. Evidence showed the deed was sent with instructions that it not be recorded unless Gentry died and should be returned if he recovered, yet Parker recorded it after his recovery. A jury found the deed was not intended as an absolute conveyance, but the trial court initially entered judgment for Parker before granting Gentry a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, holding that valid delivery of a deed requires the grantor's intent that title pass immediately and that the grantor lose control, which the evidence indicated was lacking here.

property

This case involved a minor, Roy Gaddy Shackelford, through his guardian ad litem, seeking to impose a constructive trust on assets held by the defendant as administratrix of the estate of Nell Trotter, the minor's grandmother. The minor claimed that approximately $2,522 in inheritance funds from his deceased mother had been used by the grandmother to purchase and improve real property in Arizona, which she devised in her will to her nephew. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence showed the property was acquired with the minor's funds. The court reasoned that the grandmother's use of the funds created an unjust enrichment, and equity imposed a constructive trust on the assets to prevent the estate from retaining the benefit at the minor's expense, despite the will's terms.

propertyfamily law

The case concerned a claim by an attorney against the estate of Davey for $3,175 in unpaid legal fees across multiple matters. The trial court awarded only $800, but this concurring opinion argues that the cross-appeal for the remaining amount should also be granted. The reasoning is that the claim as filed with the administratrix sufficiently stated the facts and total demand to meet statutory requirements, without needing the precision of a formal pleading. Additional details in the complaint about when the fees became due did not alter the underlying claim. The statute of limitations therefore began running only after the condition for payment was satisfied in 1939, so none of the items were barred when suit was filed.

procedure

In Faber v. State of Arizona, the defendant was charged under Arizona Code Annotated 1939 Section 43-407 with committing lewd and lascivious acts upon another male in an unnatural manner with intent to gratify sexual desires. The trial court convicted him based on testimony from police officers who observed the acts after entering his home without a warrant while investigating narcotics violations, and the defendant appealed on grounds including the sufficiency of the information, the constitutionality of the statute, improper arrest and search, and trial errors. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the information tracked the language of the valid statute and sufficiently stated the offense, that the caption's reference to 'fellatio' was immaterial, that the evidence supported the verdict, and that other claimed errors such as the lack of a warrant or selective prosecution lacked merit. The court reasoned that prior precedent upheld the statute and that no partnership in crime required joint prosecution.

criminal law

The case involved a bastardy proceeding against Horace Nerini, initiated in justice court by a woman accusing him of fathering a child born out of wedlock, which was then transferred to superior court under statutory procedures for such actions. The defendant moved to quash the complaint, arguing it was barred by one-year statutes of limitations applicable to misdemeanors or civil parentage actions, and the superior court granted the motion. On the state's appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that bastardy proceedings are civil in nature and purely statutory, with no limitations period provided in the relevant statutes (Sections 27-405 to 27-415) because the father's duty of support is ongoing. The court further ruled that general appeal provisions for special proceedings apply, allowing review, and remanded for trial.

family lawprocedure

In City of Phoenix v. Wright, Charles H. Wright sued the city for unpaid salary after performing duties as assistant chief of police from December 1941 through March 1942, following his reinstatement by the civil service board. The city denied that Wright held the position properly under civil service rules, arguing his original appointment was invalid and that he had never passed a required examination, and it refused payment despite the board's certification and payroll approvals. The trial court ruled for Wright, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the city's defense amounted to an improper collateral attack on the civil service board's determinations of Wright's status and eligibility, which could only be challenged through a direct proceeding rather than in this salary action. The court noted that Wright had performed the work, received board certification, and benefited from prior similar precedent protecting certified employees from such challenges.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Abraham Ackerman against Judah A. Kaufman, the executor of the estate of Annie Kaufman (Ackerman's sister and Kaufman's wife), alleging that Kaufman had probated a fraudulent will that altered Annie's signature and diverted her estate from Ackerman, who claimed the genuine will left everything to him. The superior court granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that, under Arizona statutes governing community and separate property (sections 39-109 and 39-102), when a spouse dies without children or surviving parents, the surviving spouse is entitled to the entire estate regardless of any will's validity. Thus, even assuming the will was forged as alleged, the outcome for the plaintiff would be unchanged, rendering further proceedings on the forgery claim unnecessary.

family lawproperty

This case involved the Southern Pacific Company seeking to recover taxes paid under protest to Maricopa County for the year 1940 on 8.21 miles of railroad property. The taxes were assessed for the benefit of the Buckeye Union High School District after common school district No. 47 annexed the territory without a vote or taxpayer assent and without corresponding action by the high school district. The court held that the property did not automatically become part of the union high school district under the statutes governing annexation of common school districts to high school districts, and that a prior judgment on identical facts for 1937 taxes was conclusive on this boundary issue via res judicata. Judgment was therefore rendered for the plaintiff and affirmed on appeal.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved a suit by the assignee of a promissory note and chattel mortgage to collect the debt and foreclose on fixtures and equipment in a leased drug store. The defendants, who had obtained the property through an attachment and sheriff's sale in a prior action for back rent, prevailed at trial. The court affirmed, holding that the mortgage was invalid because the buyer under a conditional sales contract had mortgaged the goods without providing the required ten-day written notice to the seller, as mandated by the statute, and thus could not convey a valid lien. The opinion also addressed but did not rely on arguments concerning waiver of a landlord's lien through use of attachment proceedings.

property

This case involved an original mandamus proceeding by the Arizona Teachers’ Retirement System to compel the State Auditor to pay a $34.50 expense claim submitted by trustee Georgie Hunter for attending board meetings in June 1943, prior to the July 1 operative date of the 1943 retirement act. The Auditor refused payment, citing the lack of an appropriation for pre-July 1 expenses. The court found that the act took effect on June 12, 1943, and required the trustees to perform certain setup duties before July 1, but no statutory appropriation covered expenses incurred during that period. It therefore held that the trustees were entitled only to certificates of indebtedness to be addressed by a future legislative deficiency appropriation, rather than direct payment. The court granted the Auditor’s motion to quash the alternative writ.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved an original mandamus proceeding by the Arizona Teachers' Retirement System against the State Auditor to compel payment of $30 in additional retirement compensation to a retired teacher for the latter half of June 1943 from the system's accrued liability fund. The auditor had refused the claim, reasoning that the new retirement system took effect July 1, 1943, and that the prior pension law had been repealed on June 13 with no explicit provision covering the transition period. The court held that the alternative writ should be made peremptory, ordering the payment. It reasoned that the legislature's intent, as shown in sections 33 and 30(a) of Chapter 61, Laws of 1943, was to continue all existing pensions without interruption through the end of June 1943 and to authorize use of the accrued liability fund for that purpose, avoiding any gap in benefits during the shift from the old to the new system.

labor & employment

This case involved an original mandamus proceeding by the Arizona Teachers’ Retirement System against the State Auditor to compel payment of salaries for the system's executive secretary and secretary for the first half of July 1943. The auditor had refused the claim, questioning whether Chapter 61 of the 1943 laws made a valid appropriation from the state school fund to the system's expense fund. The court held that section 30(b) of the Act used clear language transferring specific sums to the expense fund for carrying out the Act's provisions, which constituted an appropriation for administrative expenses. It therefore ordered the alternative writ made peremptory, requiring the auditor to draw the warrant.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the validity of Arizona's 1943 Occupational Disease Disability Law and the Industrial Commission's attempt to pay a typewriter rental claim from the act's appropriation after the state auditor rejected it due to doubts about the law's constitutionality and effective date. The court held that the law was valid under the state constitution and took immediate effect because of its emergency clause, making the alternative writ of mandamus peremptory and requiring the auditor to issue payment. The reasoning was that the statute did not implicate or violate constitutional limits on workers' compensation or damage recoveries, as occupational diseases had no common-law or statutory basis for recovery when the relevant provisions were adopted, and the emergency clause overrode the conflicting July 1 effective date in section 64. The legislature's appropriation for pre-July expenses further confirmed the intent for immediate operation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Earl K. Roseberry against his employer, Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, for a knee injury he alleged occurred while carrying a heavy form up a steep hillside on July 25, 1942, with a later aggravation on August 12. After conflicting testimony about the date, mechanism, and prior symptoms of the injury, the Industrial Commission awarded compensation, finding an accident arising out of employment. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the award on certiorari review, holding that the Commission was entitled to resolve credibility disputes in favor of the claimant's account and that any aggravation of a pre-existing condition remained compensable. The court emphasized the need for liberal construction of the compensation statute to effectuate its purpose of compensating injured workers.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute between Quick Aviation Company, which held a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Arizona Corporation Commission authorizing it to transport insecticides and germicides by airplane as a common carrier, and the administrator of a competing air service that performed aerial dusting of farm fields. Quick sought a permanent injunction and damages, claiming the defendant lacked authority to perform similar services. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that neither party qualified as a common carrier subject to commission regulation and that the plaintiff's certificate was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the services constituted a single integrated dusting operation rather than separate transportation for hire, with payments covering the full service and no separate charge or holding out for hauling alone. The court concluded the activities were those of a contract carrier, not a common carrier under state law.

business & regulatory

The case involved a criminal information charging H.B. Jones with operating coin-operated phonograph machines in Maricopa County without first obtaining a privilege sales tax license required by Arizona's excise revenue act. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash the information, and the State appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the activity constituted the business of selling tangible personal property subject to the tax and license requirement. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of tangible personal property includes items perceptible to the senses, and the music playback triggered by coin insertion is perceptible to hearing, making the transaction a taxable sale at retail.

taxesbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case concerned the validity of a patent issued by the State of Arizona conveying 4.82 acres of state land to George Albert Boyd following a public auction sale. The court was asked to determine whether the sale complied with notice requirements in the federal Enabling Act, the Arizona Constitution, and state statutes, specifically because the auction notice was published in a newspaper nearest the major portion of the lands offered rather than the one closest to this particular parcel. The court upheld the patent as valid and affirmed title in Boyd and his wife. It reasoned that the statutory language requiring publication nearest "the location of such lands so offered" refers to the lands affected or the major portion thereof, making the chosen publication a substantial compliance with the law, consistent with the land department's long-standing practice.

propertyfederal power

This case concerns a post-divorce modification proceeding in which a trial court reduced a combined monthly award of alimony and child support from $150 to $100 after the parties' daughter reached age 21. The original decree had ordered a single sum for the support of both the wife and the minor child without separating the amounts. The dissenting opinion contends that once the child attained majority the court lost jurisdiction to alter the joint award because it could not ascertain what portion had been intended for each recipient and therefore could not properly apply the modification statute. The dissent concludes that the modification order should be reversed, relying on precedents holding that courts may not speculate about the division of an undivided support award or enforce it after the underlying obligations have ended.

family law

This case involved a quo warranto action challenging the validity of Phoenix's Ordinance No. 2817 annexing the Grand Avenue Addition based on whether the petition met the requirement of signatures from owners of at least half the value of taxable property in the area. The court upheld the ordinance, finding that sufficient valid signatures were obtained after reviewing disputed items in the parties' stipulation. It reasoned that husbands could sign for community property, as signing the petition did not constitute a conveyance or incumbrance requiring both spouses; that widows and soldiers' properties counted despite exemptions; and that certain other signers like a mortgagee in possession qualified as owners, while unauthorized signers did not. The valid signatures totaled more than the required valuation threshold.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a real estate partnership formed in 1936 among Lawrence Berry and the Solomon brothers, in which Berry alleged he advanced substantial funds beyond the initial investment, that the Solomons failed to account for profits or rentals, and that they fraudulently induced an accord and satisfaction in 1938 by misrepresenting the partnership's finances, leading to a 50-50 property division and later conveyances that allegedly aimed to defraud him. Berry sought an injunction, accounting, constructive trust, and full ownership of the properties. The trial court and jury found that the 1938 accord and satisfaction was valid, entered freely with no fraud or duress, and divided the assets equally, with Berry receiving a deed for his half-interest. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the agreement became final upon execution, the subsequent powers of attorney were not part of the consideration, and findings of no fraud precluded reopening the settlement.

propertybusiness & regulatory