This Court rarely disturbs local decisions of the territorial
court on question of local practice.
The supreme court of the territory, having held that, under § 10
of Act 44 of 1899 of Arizona transferring cases from the district
court of one county to the corresponding court of another county
newly organized, the former court retained jurisdiction until the
condition of the transfer were fulfilled, this Court follow that
decision.
13 Ariz. 287 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 228 U. S. 706
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a suit to recover possession of land conveyed by the
father of the appellants to them, pending a prior suit prosecuted
by the appellee to quiet title in a tract of which this land was
part.
Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.
S. 289. The plaintiff (appellee) got a judgment for
possession and damages, and the defendant took the case to the
supreme court of the territory.
The errors assigned before that court seem to have been first,
the refusal of the court below to strike out a paragraph of the
complaint that set up the decree in the former suit, the defendant
contending that it appeared on its face to have been entered by a
court having no jurisdiction; second, the overruling of a general
demurrer, and besides these two, the overruling of a motion for
judgment in defendant's favor, and of another motion for a new
trial and in arrest of judgment, and the admission of incompetent
evidence. The court declined to review the assignments other than
the first two, both because they were too general and because the
abstract of record before the court did not contain the evidence,
and therefore it would have been necessary to examine the original
transcript of the reporter's notes, contrary to the rules and
practice of the court. Accordingly, when the appellant moved for
findings of fact in the nature of a special verdict, the motion was
denied, and the first contention of the appellants is that the case
should be sent back for findings of fact.
Nielsen v.
Steinfield, 224 U. S. 534.
We assume that the findings of fact desired were findings
sufficient to open the last-mentioned assignments of error for
reconsideration here. But the only findings that the supreme court
of the territory could have made in
Page 228 U. S. 707
order to submit its rulings to revision would have been to the
effect of what we have stated. It was not called on to reverse its
decision that, by correct local practice, the merits were not
before it in order to present the merits to this Court. Therefore,
unless its decision on the question of practice was wrong, its
refusal to make the findings desired was right. But we rarely
disturb local decisions on questions of local practice, and we see
no reason to do so in this instance. Therefore, so far as all the
assignments of error after the first two are concerned, the
judgment must be affirmed.
Armijo v. Armijo, 181 U.
S. 558,
181 U. S.
561.
We see no ground for the demurrer unless it was intended to
raise the same question as the motion to strike out the averments
touching the previous suit. The basis of this motion was that the
jurisdiction of the court where that suit was pending was ended
before judgment by § 10 of Act 44, 20th Leg. Assembly, 1899. By
that section, all actions "now pending" in the district court of
Pima County, where the property in controversy is situated in the
new County of Santa Cruz, "shall be transferred to the proper
courts of said county of Santa Cruz for trial," and it is made the
duty of the clerks of Pima County to transmit all papers, provided
that it shall not be the clerk's duty to do so until his fees and
compensation allowed by the act shall have been paid or tendered to
him, and until all costs due to the clerk and sheriff have been
paid. The court of Santa Cruz is to acquire jurisdiction upon
receipt by its clerk of the papers in the actions transferred. It
was held by the supreme court -- and we should follow the decision
even if it were less obviously correct (
Gray v. Taylor,
227 U. S. 51,
227 U. S. 57) --
that the jurisdiction of the Pima court remained until the
conditions of transfer were fulfilled, and that no facts were
alleged in the complaint showing that to be the case. No ground
appears for disturbing the judgment below.
Judgment affirmed.