Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1642 (2026)

Determination of issue between principal and surety; finding for surety and order of levy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. When an action is brought against two or more defendants upon a contract, and one or more of the defendants are surety for the others, the surety may cause the issue of suretyship between the defendants to be tried and determined at any time before the trial, but such proceedings shall not delay the action of the plaintiff.

B. If the issue is determined in favor of the surety, the court shall order the sheriff to levy the execution first upon the property of the principal which is subject to execution and situate in the county in which the judgment was rendered before a levy is made upon the property of the surety, if enough property of the principal is found as in the opinion of the sheriff or constable is sufficient to make the amount of the execution, otherwise the levy shall be made on so much property of the principal as is found, if any, and upon so much of the property of the surety as is necessary to make the amount of the execution. The clerk shall make a memorandum of such order on the execution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1975–2013 · leading case: A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani Cnty. Improvement Dist., 311 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani Cnty. Improvement Dist., 311 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “¶ 37 Safeco’s reliance on A.R.S. § 12-1642 is misplaced. 12 The performance bond here was statutorily required pursuant to Arizona’s Little Miller Act, A.”

United States v. H. E. Crain & Ethel E. Crain, Husband & Wife, & Coconino Cnty., Arizona, 589 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1979). “While Austad is controlling as to the Crains’ claim under § 12-1641, it does not address the question of whether this standard form language waived any defenses under Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 12-1642, 12-1643, 12 — 1646 and Ariz.”

Terrazas v. Superior Ct., Cty. of Maricopa, Div. Five, 543 P.2d 120 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-1642 reads: “A. When an action is brought against two or more defendants upon a contract, and one or more of the defendants are surety for the others, the surety may cause the issue of suretyship between the defendants to be tried and determined at any time before…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1642(B) — 1 case

A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani Cnty. Improvement Dist., 311 P.3d 1062 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “¶ 37 Safeco’s reliance on A.R.S. § 12-1642 is misplaced. 12 The performance bond here was statutorily required pursuant to Arizona’s Little Miller Act, A.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.