From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrett v. Hiney

Supreme Court of Arizona
May 29, 1963
94 Ariz. 133 (Ariz. 1963)

Opinion

No. 7479.

May 29, 1963.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Yavapai County, John F. Molloy, J.

Favour Quail, Prescott, for appellant.


Appellant was plaintiff in a suit to collect a real estate commission. The trial court held that on most of the issues the evidence supported the plaintiff's position but that judgment should be entered for the defendant on the ground that there was a variance in the terms of payment and that these terms did not meet the listing contract. Neither waiver nor estoppel were applicable to the facts in the case.

Appellant has made numerous assignments of error challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief within the time prescribed by the rules, and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a) 2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S., pursuant to motion of appellant. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume the failure to file an answering brief is confession of reversible error on the part of appellee. Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952; Tom v. Baca, 93, Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912.

Judgment reversed.

UDALL, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.


Summaries of

Barrett v. Hiney

Supreme Court of Arizona
May 29, 1963
94 Ariz. 133 (Ariz. 1963)
Case details for

Barrett v. Hiney

Case Details

Full title:Don J. BARRETT, Appellant, v. William M. HINEY, Appellee

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: May 29, 1963

Citations

94 Ariz. 133 (Ariz. 1963)
382 P.2d 240

Citing Cases

Mayberry v. Stambaugh

(emphasis added) (quoting Nelson, 91 Ariz. at 217)); Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 134 (1963) ("As…

United Bonding Insurance v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc.

Our Supreme Court has stated that where there are debatable issues and the appellee fails to file an…