Pickthall v. Steinfeld
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL and cross-appeal from a judgment of the District Conrt of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. Ordinarily, where fraud is charged, the intent of the parties is a proper inquiry; hut not so where it has been reduced to writing. 6 Ency. of Ev., p. 61; Mower y.
Read the full summary
APPEAL and cross-appeal from a judgment of the District Conrt of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. Ordinarily, where fraud is charged, the intent of the parties is a proper inquiry; hut not so where it has been reduced to writing. 6 Ency. of Ev., p. 61; Mower y. Brumbach, 131 Ill. 646, 23 N. E. 335. When protracted negotiations result in a written contract which in plain terms sets out the contract, the contract alone is the evidence of its terms and conditions.
1Opinion of the Court
NAVE, J. —
Charlotte Pickthall, as administratrix of the estate of John Edward Francis, deceased, brought suit against Albert Steinfeld to recover the value of decedent’s interest in certain mining claims, conveyance of which is alleged to have been obtained by Steinfeld by a fraud perpetrated with the co-operation of decedent’s mother and another, upon decedent, who at the time of conveyance was a minor. Upon the conclusion of the tailing of testimony on behalf of the plaintiff the defendant, as well as the plaintiff, rested. The defendant then moved for an instruction to the jury that a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Copper Belle Mining Co. v. CostelloArizona Supreme Court · 1908
- Turner v. FranklinArizona Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mayhew v. BrislinArizona Supreme Court · 1910