Hackberry Consolidated Silver Mines Co. v. Neagle

Arizona Supreme Court
Hackberry Consolidated Silver Mines Co. v. Neagle, 24 Ariz. 488 (Ariz. 1922)
211 P. 566; 1922 Ariz. LEXIS 235
Flanigan, Gibbons, McAlister

Hackberry Consolidated Silver Mines Co. v. Neagle

Opinion of the Court

GIBBONS, Superior Judge.

The facts that give rise to this attempted appeal appear fully in case No. 2002, ante, p. 481, 211 Pac. 564, entitled Senate Silver Mining Co., a Corporation, v. Hackberry Consolidated Mining Co., a Corporation, Hackberry Consolidated Silver Mines Co., a Corporation, et al. It *489is the opinion of the court that the order of the trial court refusing to recognize attorneys Spicer, McDowell and Armour, and in their places recognizing attorneys Herndon and Dunnigan as representing defendant Hackberry Consolidated Silver Mines Company, is not before us for review. The attorneys attempting to take this appeal were not parties to the suit below, and cannot be heard in this court to question the order.

McALISTER, Acting C. J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
HACKBERRY CONSOLIDATED SILVER MINES COMPANY, C. C. SPICER, C. E. McDOWELL and E. E. ARMOUR v. W. M. NEAGLE, and HACKBERRY CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, HACKBERRY CONSOLIDATED SILVER MINES COMPANY, a Corporation, G. S. HOLMES, F. S. HOLMES, JAMES A. MURRAY, MARY H. MURRAY, A. G. KEATING, JOHN DOE ROSENBERG, JOHN DOE ROSENBERG & COMPANY, a Corporation, RICHARD ROE, JOHN ROE and SENATE SILVER MINING COMPANY, a Corporation
Status
Published