De Amado v. Friedman
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtNave, J.
— B. Friedman, the appellee, was the-tenant of Ismael T. De Amado, the appellant. Upon Friedman’s child, aged four years and four months, an adobe wall in the leased premises fell and instantly killed him. Friedman sued Mrs. De Amado for damages in the sum of $4,800, alleging that the falling of the wall was due to the negligence of the defendant. From a judgment upon a verdict for the full amount sued for, the defendant has appealed.
1. The first assignment of error is based upon the contention that the eomplaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is alleged…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Houghkirk v. President, Managers & Co. of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Hudson v. Wabash Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Buechner v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Osborne v. Alabama Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Southern Pacific Co. v. WilsonArizona Supreme Court · 1906
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Arizona Binghampton Copper Co. v. DicksonArizona Supreme Court · 1921
- Dockery v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1935
- Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. ConwellArizona Supreme Court · 1920
- Phoenix Railway Co. v. LandisSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon RailwayNevada Supreme Court · 1913
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.