Case ID: ariz_16/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civil No. 1372.
    Filed June 12, 1914.]
    [141 Pac. 573.]
    A. L. DE MUND, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES OLCESTER and the TRUSTEES OF YUMA LODGE NO. 476 OF THE BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS, Defendants in Error.
    Appeal and Error—Writ op Error—Beview.—Where a judgment was rendered on November 20, 1912, followed on the same day by a denial of a new trial, it is not reviewable on writ of error sued out on November 18, 1913; that remedy having been abolished by Civil Code of 1913, paragraph 1226, in effect October 1, 1913, providing for review by appeal.
    WRIT OP ERROR from the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. J. E. O’Connor, Judge.
    Writ of error dismissed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    Mr. Peter T. Robertson, for Plaintiff in Error.
    Mr. Thomas D. Molloy, for Defendant in Error.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment in this case was rendered on November 20, 1912, and on the same day a motion for a new trial was made and denied. On November 18, 1913, a writ of error was sued out to have the judgment and order reviewed by this court.

The law which went into effect October 1, 1913, provides that a judgment or order in a civil action or proceeding or in a probate proceeding may be reviewed by appeal, and not otherwise. Paragraph 1226, Ariz. Rev. Stats. 1913, Civil Code. Before the writ of error in this case was sued out, the law-making power had abolished that method of review. It follows, therefore, that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ. Steinfeld v. Nielsen, 139 Pac. 879.

Writ of error dismissed.