Turner v. Franklin

Citations

• 10 Ariz. 188
• 85 P. 1070
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 119

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal and Error — Writ of Error — Co-Plaintiffs in Error — Bond-—Filing.—Jurisdictional.—Where in an action against a sheriff and his surety, judgment was rendered against both, and petition for a writ of error was filed for plaintiffs in error but the bond was given only on behalf of the surety, the supreme court acquired no-jurisdiction to determine any question relative to the rights or interests of the sheriff.</p> <p>2. Same — Findings—Sufficiency of Evidence — Motion for New Trial —Necessity for — Review—Scope.—The insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is a good ground for a new trial and no. judgment will be reversed on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence unless a motion for a new trial has been made and overruled in the court where such judgment was rendered, and the-overruling excepted to and assigned as error.</p> <p>3. Principal and Surety — Surety Companies — Process—Rev. Stats. Ariz. 190.1, Pars. 414, 1323, Construed. — Under- paragraph 1323, supra, authorizing service generally on a corporation by serving its president, secretary, treasurer, or director or local agent representing the company in the county in which the suit is brought, and paragraph 414, supra, making the appointment of a citizen ag( on whom process may be served a condition precedent to a sur[ company’s right to do business within the territory and providij that a judgment, decree, or order of court entered or made afi - service of process on such agent shall be as valid and binding j i if served with process in the county where the suit is brought; where a defendant surety company had appointed a statutory agent, a return showing service made by delivering a true copy of summons and complaint to such agent was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the surety company, though the return did not. show the class or kind of agent upon whom the process was served.</p>