Case ID: ariz_6/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      DAVIS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civil No. 592.
    Filed April 16, 1898.]
    [52 Pac. 773.]
    J. F. DAGGS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NEILL B. FIELD et al., Defendants and Appellees.
    1. Appeal and Error—Assignments of Error—Sufficiency—Laavs 1897, Act No. 71, Construed—Daggs v. Hoskins, 5 Ariz. 236, Followed.—Under the statute, supra, providing that the brief of appellant shall contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all' errors not so assigned shall be deemed to have been waived, a brief which is a printed argument in support of what are therein termed “contentions” does not satisfy the provisions of the law or the requirements of the rules of court, and no error appearing on the face of the record the judgment will be affirmed. Daggs v. Soskins, supra, followed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in and for the County of Coconino. Owen T. Bouse, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    George "W. Glowner, and A. J. Daggs, for Appellants.
    Herndon & Norris, for Appellees.
   DAVIS, J.

There are no sufficient assignments of error made by the appellants in their brief. The act of the legislature approved March 18, 1897, relating to appeals and writs of error, under the provisions of which this appeal is taken, provides, among other things, that “the brief of the plaintiff in error, or appellant, shall . . . contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all errors not assigned in the printed brief shall be deemed to have been waived.” The rules of the court likewise provide that all assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon. The brief filed by the appellants in the case at bar is a printed argument in support of what are therein termed ‘ ‘ contentions, ’ ’ and these, as previously held in the case of Daggs v. Hoskins, 5 Ariz. 236, 52 Pac. 350 (decided at the present term), under like conditions, do not satisfy the provision of the law nor the requirements of the rules of the court. No error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Street, C. J., Sloan, J., and Doan, J., concur.