Steinfeld v. Nielsen
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. STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE COURT. This action was brought against the appellants in the district court of Pima county in June, 1905, by the appellee, Mary Nielsen, individually, and as the administratrix of the estate of Carl S. Nielsen, deceased.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE COURT. This action was brought against the appellants in the district court of Pima county in June, 1905, by the appellee, Mary Nielsen, individually, and as the administratrix of the estate of Carl S. Nielsen, deceased. Among other things, the complaint prays that a certain sale, made by Carl S. Nielsen and Mary Nielsen to Albert Steinfeld, of 300 shares of the capital stock of the defendant corporation should be set aside as…
1Dissent
CUNNINGHAM, J.,
Dissenting.—Senate Bill No. 108 was •approved April 1, 1913, and became effective on October 1, 1913. The judgment by this court was entered on January '27, 1913. The scope of review at the time this court had this •cause before it for that purpose was limited to a review of the judgment-roll only. Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Globe Hardware Co., 14 Ariz. 397, 129 Pac. 1104; Miami Copper Co. v. Strohl, 14 Ariz. 410, 130 Pac. 605; Van Dyke v. Cordova Copper Co., 14 Ariz. 499, 132 Pac. 94; Thomas v. Bartleson, 14 Ariz. 513, 131 Pac. 973.
If it be conceded that the provisions of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miami Copper Co. v. StrohlArizona Supreme Court · 1913
- Arizona Eastern Railroad v. Globe Hardware Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1913
- Van Dyke v. Cordova Copper Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1913
- Thomas v. BartlesonArizona Supreme Court · 1913