Case Name: MAY M. CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellee
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1908-03-27
Citations: 11 Ariz. 322
Docket Number: Civil No. 1017
Parties: MAY M. CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 322–322

Head Matter:
[Civil No. 1017.
Filed March 27, 1908.]
[94 Pac. 1134.]
MAY M. CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
Pleading — Ambiguity.—A complaint to recover upon a contract set forth, therein, which contract upon its face is uninterpretable, which contains no extrinsic facts in aid of the interpretation, does not state-a cause of action.
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the-First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John. H. Campbell, Judge.
Affirmed.
The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.
Eugene S. Ives, for Appellant.
S. L. Kingan, and A. A. Worsley, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
— May M. Clark brought suit against the Liberty Mining and Smelting Company to recover upon a contract set forth as part of her complaint. From a judgment against her she has appealed. The assignments.of error all attack the findings of fact made by a referee, to whom the case, pursuant to stipulation, was referred for trial and findings. To review these findings we must interpret the contract upon which Mrs. Clark sued.' This contract is remarkable for its insoluble. ambiguity. Its solution is not aided extrinsieally. The ambiguity goes to the extent of rendering the contract unenforceable. Wherefore the complaint, based upon it, does not state a cause of action. It follows that the judgment against the plaintiff must be affirmed.
CAMPBELL, J., not sitting.