Daggs v. Hoskins

Decided February 23, 1898

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1898-02-23

<p>1. Appeal and Error—Assignment of Error—Sufficiency—“Contentions”—Laws 1897, Act No. 71, Approved March 18, 1897, Cited ■—Rules of Court Cited—Error Apparent on Face of Record.— The aet, supra, provides that the brief of appellant shall contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all errors not assigned in the printed brief shall be deemed to have been waived. The rules of this court, supra, likewise provide that all assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon. What are termed “contentions” in the brief of counsel for appellants do not meet the provisions of said statute or rule, and, no error being apparent on the face of . the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-02-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1920

3 state decisions

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1There are no sufficient assignments of error made by, the appellants in their brief. The aet of the legislature approved March 18, 1897, relating to appeals and writs of error, under the provisions of which this appeal is taken, provides, among other things, that “the brief of the plaintiff in error, or appellant, shall also next contain a distinct enumeration in the form of propositions of the several errors relied on, and all errors not assigned in the printed brief shall be deemed to have been, waived. ’ ’ The rules of this court, likewise, provide that all assignments of error must distinctly specify each ground of error relied upon. What are termed “contentions” in the brief of counsel for appellants do not meet the provisions of the statute quoted above, *237nor the requirements of the rules of this court. No error being apparent on the face of the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

¶2Street, C. J., Sloan, J., and Davis, J., concur.