elementary rule in Arizona

1967In re Estate of Harber, 99 Ariz. 323 , 409 P.2d 31 (1965).

1967In re Estate of Harber, 99 Ariz. 323 , 409 P.2d 31 (1965).

1967In re Estate of Harber, 99 Ariz. 323 , 409 P.2d 31 (1965).

1967In re Estate of Harber, 99 Ariz. 323 , 409 P.2d 31 (1965).

1970In Wayne Building and Loan Company of Wooster v. Yarborough, 11 Ohio St.2d 195 , 228 N.E.2d 841 the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: “ * * * The vendee under an executory contract for the sale and purchase of real property has an equitable lien or estate in the land in the amount paid on the purchase price * * i This is in accord with the general rule in other jurisdictions * * (Page 845-846) ****** “It is an elementary rule of property that an equitable estate in lands continues until cut off by the rights of a bona fide purchaser absent the influence of a statute, such as a recording act.” (Pag

1970In Wayne Building and Loan Company of Wooster v. Yarborough, 11 Ohio St.2d 195 , 228 N.E.2d 841 the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: “ * * * The vendee under an executory contract for the sale and purchase of real property has an equitable lien or estate in the land in the amount paid on the purchase price * * i This is in accord with the general rule in other jurisdictions * * (Page 845-846) ****** “It is an elementary rule of property that an equitable estate in lands continues until cut off by the rights of a bona fide purchaser absent the influence of a statute, such as a recording act.” (Pag

1970In Wayne Building and Loan Company of Wooster v. Yarborough, 11 Ohio St.2d 195 , 228 N.E.2d 841 the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: “ * * * The vendee under an executory contract for the sale and purchase of real property has an equitable lien or estate in the land in the amount paid on the purchase price * * i This is in accord with the general rule in other jurisdictions * * (Page 845-846) ****** “It is an elementary rule of property that an equitable estate in lands continues until cut off by the rights of a bona fide purchaser absent the influence of a statute, such as a recording act.” (Pag

1970In Wayne Building and Loan Company of Wooster v. Yarborough, 11 Ohio St.2d 195 , 228 N.E.2d 841 the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: “ * * * The vendee under an executory contract for the sale and purchase of real property has an equitable lien or estate in the land in the amount paid on the purchase price * * i This is in accord with the general rule in other jurisdictions * * (Page 845-846) ****** “It is an elementary rule of property that an equitable estate in lands continues until cut off by the rights of a bona fide purchaser absent the influence of a statute, such as a recording act.” (Pag

1964It was: “The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.” Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, 93 Ariz. 97, 105 , 378 P.2d 913, 918 .

1964It was: “The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.” Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, 93 Ariz. 97, 105 , 378 P.2d 913, 918 .

1949“It is an elementary rule in the construction of wills that the language used must be liberally construed with a view to carrying into effect what the will as á whole shows was the real intent of the testator.” In re Effertz’ Estate, Mont., 207 P.2d 1151, 1152 .

1949And in Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum, 49 Ariz. 1 , 63 P.2d 639, 646 , we said in considering with approval the case of The Lusitania, D.C., 251 F. 715 , 732: “ 'It is an elementary principle of law that, even if a person is negligent, recovery cannot be had, unless the negligence is the proximate cause of the loss or damage.’ ” Is there, then, evidence in the record as heretofore recited which would justify a jury in finding that the alleged negligence of the defendant bus driver was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs?

1949And in Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum, 49 Ariz. 1 , 63 P.2d 639, 646 , we said in considering with approval the case of The Lusitania, D.C., 251 F. 715 , 732: “ 'It is an elementary principle of law that, even if a person is negligent, recovery cannot be had, unless the negligence is the proximate cause of the loss or damage.’ ” Is there, then, evidence in the record as heretofore recited which would justify a jury in finding that the alleged negligence of the defendant bus driver was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs?

1949And in Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cornum, 49 Ariz. 1 , 63 P.2d 639, 646 , we said in considering with approval the case of The Lusitania, D.C., 251 F. 715 , 732: “ 'It is an elementary principle of law that, even if a person is negligent, recovery cannot be had, unless the negligence is the proximate cause of the loss or damage.’ ” Is there, then, evidence in the record as heretofore recited which would justify a jury in finding that the alleged negligence of the defendant bus driver was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs?

1944Jur.' 80, page 52, “The rule which prohibits a guardian from risking his ward’s funds by investments of a speculative nature applies most strongly to his engaging those funds in any kind of business.” See Sistrunk & Co. v. Navarra’s Committee, 268 Ky. 753 , 105 S. W. (2d) 1039, 1040 , in which it is said: “It is an elementary principle of law that a fiduciary may not risk trust property in trade or speculation, and this rule applies even where he simply continues the business or trade of the cestui g_ue trust.

1944Jur.' 80, page 52, “The rule which prohibits a guardian from risking his ward’s funds by investments of a speculative nature applies most strongly to his engaging those funds in any kind of business.” See Sistrunk & Co. v. Navarra’s Committee, 268 Ky. 753 , 105 S. W. (2d) 1039, 1040 , in which it is said: “It is an elementary principle of law that a fiduciary may not risk trust property in trade or speculation, and this rule applies even where he simply continues the business or trade of the cestui g_ue trust.

1944“Cases may sometimes occur where, a ward inherits an interest in a business, and it is necessary temporarily to continue the business in order that it may be sold as a going and successful enterprise; but even in such a case the guardian must apply for and obtain an order of court authorizing him to'continue the business, . . . .” Garrett v. Reed-Cashion Land & Cattle Co,, 34 Ariz.. 245, 270 Pac. 1044 , is authority for the proposition that the effect of the dealing with a ward’s property by the guardian without authority of the court amounted to a conversion of the property of the minor and t

1943“In 26 Ruling Case Law, p. 1372, it is said that— “ ‘It is an elementary principle in the law of trusts that in the execution of a trust, the trustee is bound to comply strictly with the directions contained in the trust instrument, defining the extent and limits of his authority, and the nature of his powers and duties.’ “And in the case of Murphy v. Delano, 1901, 95 Me. 229 , 49 Atl. 1053 , 55 L.

1943“In 26 Ruling Case Law, p. 1372, it is said that— “ ‘It is an elementary principle in the law of trusts that in the execution of a trust, the trustee is bound to comply strictly with the directions contained in the trust instrument, defining the extent and limits of his authority, and the nature of his powers and duties.’ “And in the case of Murphy v. Delano, 1901, 95 Me. 229 , 49 Atl. 1053 , 55 L.

1932J. 352, §70; Bryson v. Bryson, 62 Cal. App. 170 , 216 Pac. 391 .

1932J. 352, §70; Bryson v. Bryson, 62 Cal. App. 170 , 216 Pac. 391 .

1925Co. , 160 U.S. 303 , 316 , 40 L.Ed. 436 , 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282 , 287 , at 440, it is said: "The elementary rule is that one must recover on the strength of his own and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary, but this principle is subject to the qualification that possession alone is adequate as against a mere intruder or trespasser without even color of title, and especially so against one who has taken possession by force and violence.

1925Co. , 160 U.S. 303 , 316 , 40 L.Ed. 436 , 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282 , 287 , at 440, it is said: "The elementary rule is that one must recover on the strength of his own and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary, but this principle is subject to the qualification that possession alone is adequate as against a mere intruder or trespasser without even color of title, and especially so against one who has taken possession by force and violence.

1903The rule that has prevailed in this court that the findings and judgment of the lower court will not be disturbed for want of evidence where the record discloses any competent evidence in support thereof (Willard v. Carrigan, 8 Ariz. 70 , 68 Pac. 538 , and cases cited) is predicated upon the elementary principle that it requires some evidence to sup port a finding and judgment for plaintiff.

1903The rule that has prevailed in this court that the findings and judgment of the lower court will not be disturbed for want of evidence where the record discloses any competent evidence in support thereof (Willard v. Carrigan, 8 Ariz. 70 , 68 Pac. 538 , and cases cited) is predicated upon the elementary principle that it requires some evidence to sup port a finding and judgment for plaintiff.