Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Ariz. 534

57 P.2d 1140

McCloskey v. Renfro

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1936

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1936-05-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The justice of the peace who rendered such judgment is not an aggrieved party. Section 3658, Rev.Code 1928. He has no property or financial interest in the litigation and the way the case was decided is a matter of absolute indifference to him as a presiding judge. The action is between Whiting and Renfro, who are the interested parties. We know of no rule of law that will permit a judge whose judgment is annulled or vacated to become a party to the action and prosecute an appeal. Doubtless many of the judges on occasion would like to appeal, but this is the first time we have known of one doing so. If the superior court erroneously vacated the judgment entered by appellant in the justice court, the party injured thereby may, in a proper proceeding, seek to have the matter reviewed, but not the judge of the court.” 57 P.2d at 1140 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State Ex Rel. Dean v. CITY COURT, ETC.

Relies on City of Phoenix v. Greer · Kinnison v. Superior Court · Tyler v. District Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1936-05-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1980

13 state decisions

40193619401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROSS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal by A. G. McCloskey, justice of the peace of No. 1 precinct, Navajo county, from a judgment of -the superior court of said county, in a certiorari proceeding, vacating and annulling a judgment entered by appellant in said justice court in favor of Ralph Whiting and against R. T. Renfro for $100 principal and $9.10 costs.

¶2 The appeal must be dismissed for two reasons:

¶3 1. The justice of the peace who rendered such judgment is not an aggrieved party. Section 3658, Rev. Code. 1928. He has no property or financial interest in the litigation and the way the case was decided is a matter of absolute indifference to him as a presiding judge. The action is between Whiting and Renfro, who are the interested parties. We know of no rule of law that will permit a judge whose judgment is annulled or vacated to become a party to the action and prosecute an appeal. Doubtless many of the judges on occasion would like to appeal, but this is the first time we have known of one doing so. If the superior court erroneously vacated the judgment entered by appellant in the justice court, the party injured thereby may, in a proper proceeding, seek to have the matter reviewed, but not the judge of the court.

¶4 2. Granting that the appeal is in the interests of Whiting, since the judgment that was annulled and vacated was in his favor and he the aggrieved *536 party, still the matter is not properly before this court. The action is to recover a money judgment. The amount in controversy being less than. $200, and the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute not being involved in the action, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 4, art. 6, Constitution. See, also, Kinnison v. Superior Court of Pima County, 46 Ariz. 133, 46 Pac. (2d) 1087; City of Phoenix v. Greer, 43 Ariz. 214, 29 Pac. (2d) 1062; Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Hinton, 20 Ariz. 266, 179 Pac. 963; State ex rel. Wooster v. Sapp, 15 Ariz. 24, 135 Pac. 718; Tyler v. District Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 Pac. 315.

¶5 The appeal is dismissed.

¶6 LOCKWOOD, C. J., and McALISTER, J., concur.

/47/ariz/534 · .json · Public domain