Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 80 Ariz. 368, 298 P.2d 789. The facts as therein set forth are correct and need not be restated. Upon the authority of the holdings in Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724, and Fagerberg v. Denny, 57 Ariz. 188, 112 P.2d 581, and the fuller and correct analysis of the applicable rules relating to entry of judgment as set forth in the dissenting opinion in the case as originally reported, it is our opinion that an erroneous conclusion was reached in the majority opinion, and that the order of this court dismissing the appeal should be vacated and the appeal reinstated. This record discloses that deputy clerks of court assigned to various divisions of the Superior Court in Maricopa County oftentimes do not conclude their courtroom duties until the end of the day.

It is true that our Supreme Court has treated as valid filings made without the payment of the required fee where those filings were accepted by the Clerk. See Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724 (1948); McGirk v. Seventy-Six Cattle Co., 38 Ariz. 354, 300 P. 181 (1931). In both of those cases, however, the Court emphasized the statutory language now contained in § 12-301 B, which provides that the "[f]ailure to collect the fee shall not affect the validity of the act or service."

Such an order becomes effective on the date it is entered in the civil docket, however, and not from the time any fees are paid. See also Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724 (1948) where the inquiry was when a judgment became final for purposes of calculating the time for appeal. We have held that the time for appeal begins to run from the date judgment is recorded in the civil docket regardless of the payment of judgment fees.

Equally important, it would not be the date of entry directed by the court. It should be noted that we are not here confronted with the application of the last portion of Rule 58(a) where formal written judgments are required, which we discussed in Southwestern Freight Lines v. Shafer, 57 Ariz. 111, 111 P.2d 625; nor with the problem of the clerk's right to refuse to enter a judgment until the judgment fee is paid, considered in Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724; nor with an order entered elsewhere by a visiting judge and transmitted by mail to the clerk as was the case in Fagerberg v. Denny, 57 Ariz. 188, 112 P.2d 581. Here a simple order denying a motion for new trial is involved, no fee was required, and no formal written order was contemplated or necessary. Admittedly the argument of appellant that the notice of appeal was timely filed, finds support in Moore's Federal Practice, see Vol. 7, Part IX, Appeals, Ch. 73, p. 3147, and in the case of United States v. Moore, 5 Cir., 182 F.2d 336.

This is further evidenced by the fact that the Clerk, on this order, made no notation of judgment being entered in the civil docket as required by Sec. 21-1910, A.C.A. 1939. See Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724. Furthermore at that stage there remained for determination the matter of attorney's fees, if any, chargeable to both defendants as well as the disposition of a similar motion for summary judgment against his co-defendant Ingalls. Under the contract sued upon the liability of the defendants was joint and several. Under such circumstances the rule stated in 2 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Sec. 27, is applicable: "As a general rule, a judgment or decree is not final which settles the cause as to a part only of the defendants. * * *" This statement was quoted with approval by us in the case of Beavers v. Beavers, 55 Ariz. 122, 99 P.2d 95. The purpose of the rule providing for partial summary judgments, Sec. 21-1213, A.C.A. 1939, was to speed up the trial by eliminating what were not deemed proper issues. We had no intention in the adoption of this rule to make such a partial summary judgment final and appealable. A contrary holding would result in delay and waste of time in appealing piecem

Litigants should be entitled to rely upon previous decisions of the supreme court until they are clearly overruled. Sligh v. Watson, 67 Ariz. 95, 191 P.2d 724 (1948). Schade involved the termination of an employment contract with a long time valued employee.