Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf
Citations
- 10 Ariz. 221
- 86 P. 7
- 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 125
Syllabus
<p>1. Mistake of Law — Not Corrected by Court of Equity. — A mistake of law, as to the legal effect of an agreement, which is unconnected with a mistake of fact and where there is no fraud, imposition, or undue advantage, will not be corrected by a court of equity.</p> <p>2. Findings of Fact — Legal Effect. — Where an agreement between a corporation and one of its stockholders after reciting that it was the desire of the parties to settle the question of the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of a certain property, and after reciting that said stockholder had assumed certain obligations as a guarantor of the title of the property sold, contained provisions that said proceeds should be the property of the company, that said stockholder should hold the same as security against loss arising from his guaranty and that no dividend should be declared by the company until said stockholder should be indemnified from any such loss, it is impossible to read into this agreement any provision which establishes the property sold in either party, such agreement relating solely to the disposition of the proceeds, a finding of the court that the agreement was rescinded must be taken therefore, notwithstanding the finding of the court that the parties did not so construe the effect of their rescission, as an adjudication that all rights created by the agreement were abrogated by the parties.</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error — Findings—Judgment—Presumptions.—The supreme court may not assume that a judgment of a trial court was based on a certain finding of fact, where the trial court distinctly stated that no such finding was made.</p> <p>4. Same — Same—May not be Made by Appellate Court Where Evidence is Conflicting. — Where the evidence on a given point is conflicting and no finding on sueh point was made by the trial court the appellate court may not make sueh finding and give judgment accordingly.</p> <p>5. Corporations.— Stockholder’s Suits — Evidence — Judgment.— Where the agree
Judges: Doan, Kent, Nave, Sloan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Thompson v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1969-03-13· cited 24×
- Steinfeld v. ZeckendorfArizona Supreme Court· 1914-02-28· cited 20×
- Justus v. ClellandCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-04-09· cited 9×
- Steinfeld v. ZeckendorfArizona Supreme Court· 1907-03-23· cited 7×
- Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Tucson Police & Fire Public Safety Personnel Retirement Systems BoardCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-04-15· cited 6×
- Fund Manager v. TUCSON POLICE & FIRECourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-04-15· cited 1×
- Henry v. HealthpartnersCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2002-09-19
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.