Walker v. Blake
THOMPSON WALKER, MARY H. WALKER and DENVER HOLMESLEY, and v. CELESTE H. BLAKE and FRANK BLAKE, Her Husband, GEORGIA HOLMESLEY, JAMES HOLMESLEY, ALICE H. WILLIAMS and JOSIAH WILLIAMS, Her Husband, BURRELL HOLMESLEY, WESLEY HOLMESLEY, JOHN HOLMESLEY and LEE HOLMESLEY, and
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
Appellees move for an affirmance of judgment in this case for the reason that no motion for a new trial was filed within the time provided by law, and that there is no assignment of error. The motion for a new trial was filed more than five days after the judgment was rendered. Therefore the trial court did not err in denying it. *2 The failure to move for a new trial waived all errors not fundamental. McDonald v. Cox, 12 Ariz. 171 . 100 Pac. 457 .
Counsel for appellants do not make a formal assignment of errors, but close their brief with the statement that the trial court erred in several enumerated particulars. If this unusual method of assigning error should be treated as sufficient, we are precluded from considering the questions so presented by the fact that all are such as should have been •brought to the attention of the trial court in a motion for a new trial. None of the questions so raised involve fundamental error. Therefore we must affirm the judgment of the district court.
KENT, C. ¡T., and LEWIS, J., took no part in the determination of this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.