Legal Opinion

Tietjen v. Snead

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1890No. Civil No. 270PublishedCited by 18 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. William W. Porter, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtKibbey, J.

This was an action by appellee against appellant for damages for the breach of a contract for a lease of a store-room in Phoenix. Appellant demurred to the complaint, and the demurrer was overruled. Appellant pleaded the general denial, and specially that the written memorandum of the contract did not embody the whole agreement, but that a part of it rested in parol, and alleging breach by appellant. A demurrer to the special plea was sustained, and the ruling excepted to. There was a trial by the court. Finding and judgment for appellee. Motion for new trial by appellant overruled. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Putnam v. PutnamArizona Supreme Court · 1890
  2. McAuley & Clampitt v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Moss v. Wm. Cameron & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Wampler v. WalkerTexas Supreme Court · 1866

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Miami Copper Co. v. StrohlArizona Supreme Court · 1913
  2. McCurley v. National Savings & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1919
  3. Liberty Mining & Smelting Co. v. GeddesArizona Supreme Court · 1907
  4. York v. StewardMontana Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Molina v. Territory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1908

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API