Arizona republican., 1922-01-14
COURT HANDS Down
SIXDEC|SIONS IN
IMPORTANT ACTIONS

A motion for a new trial which or
dinarlly would be considered denied
IN the absence Of action upon it by
the court within 20 days is contin-
ued when taken under advisement.
That was the ruling of the supreme
court yesterday in the case Of ]. w.
List, appellant, against W. W. VIII
kinson, appellee, this county.
This was an appeal from an order
vacating a judgment against the ap-
pellee and granting him new trial.
1t was the contention Of the appel
liant that tn, court had lost juris-
Giction in the case at the time Of
'inally granting the order of jan
uary 25, 1921.
On Nov. of the previous year the
appellant obtained a verdict and a
Judgment. The following day a mo-
tion for a new trial was made. Hear
ing on the motion was continued from
time to time until the date when the
motion was granted.
The appellant cites two former de-
cisions of the court, but it is pointed
out that in neither of them had the
motion been taken under advisement
or otherwise continued. In one case
"a days interviewed between the filing
Of the motion and the final order,
and in the other So days. Both, then,
by the operation of law had been
deemed to have been denied. 1t was
the theory of the appellant that TO
take the matter under advisement
is not the same as to continue it.
T. w. Underhill, appellant, against
Clara Smith, Administrative of the
estate OF AL G.. Smith, deceased, ap-
pellee, Yuma county, reversed. This
was an action for the collector of an
account which had been assigned to
the appellee. A part of the account
was for work done, and part of it
for supplies furnished. A payment
had been made by Underhill. The
complaint was demurred to on the
ground that it could not be de-
termined from it whether the claim
> the plaintiff was based on work
done, materials furnished or upon
the open account. The court held
that the demurrer should have been
sustained
Arizona Mutual Auto Insurance
Bernal and her guardian, ad litem,
Jesus Bernal, appellee, Pima county,
affirmed. The appellee had obtained
Judgment against Manuel Miranda
for injuries sustained by her because
of the negligent operation of an auto
mobile by Miranda. She then brought
suit against the appellant for the re-
covery of the judgment, the company
having issued to Miranda a policy of
indemnity as the owner and user
of the automobile In carrying pas
sengers for hire.
The company resisted payment on
the ground that Miranda had neglect
ed to comply with the conditions of
the policy, one of which required that
in the event of an accident he should
give the company written notice of
1t with the fullest information. The
company should also be informed of
ally claim upon him in consequence
Of such an accident, and in the event
or the bringing OF suit against him
all papers and summonses should
be forwarded to the company.
The opinion holds that the fact of
the judgment against Miranda was
sufficient notice and that the appel
lee was under no obligation to give
my notice herself of see to the Civ
ing OF notice required by the condi-
tions of the policy to the assured
since the failure of the assured To
comply with this requirement arr
fected only his own rights against
the company and could not preju-
dice the rights OF the appellee.
Other matters disposed of by the
court yesterday were
Lucky Boy Mining and Milling
company, appellant, against +. c
Moore and others, appellees, Mohave
| county, reversed.
]. M. Smith and keystone Copper
Mining company, appellants, against
Southwest Lumber company. appel.
zee, Cochise county, reversed will
| instructions.
Gila Land and Cattle company, ap.
pe'lant, against II. l. Eads, appellee
| Maricopa county, affirmed.