Smith v. Arizona Engineering Co. (1920)
Citation: 21 Ariz. 624, 193 P. 303 · Court: Arizona Supreme Court · Decided: November 24, 1920.
Facts
Following garnishment and an execution order, 248,750 mining-company shares were sold for USD 558.47. The debtor sought to set aside the sale as inadequately priced. Evidence of earlier/later transactions did not establish the actual market value on the sale date; disinterested witnesses supported only nominal value at that time. The trial court denied relief. The reported narrative contains inconsistent historical year references; no corrected chronology is invented here.
Holding
Affirmed. The court accepted mccoy-v-brooks-1905’s conscience-shocking inadequacy standard, but found the showing of contemporaneous value insufficient. A party cannot establish actionable inadequacy merely by pointing to share prices at other times. Attacks on underlying trial/judgment irregularities were not properly presented through this particular motion attacking the sale.
Reasoning
The relevant comparison was sale price against value when sold, not a prior optimistic valuation or later market price. The appellate court deferred to supported findings. Its treatment of historical judgment-appeal remedies is not a construction of today’s Rule 60.
Practical impact
- This is a genuine stock/personal-property execution sale decision, not a case manufactured to fill a heading.
- Establish sale-date value and specific irregularity/equitable grounds; McCoy does not invalidate every low-price sale.
- Do not infer a universal judicial-confirmation requirement or modern challenge deadline from the litigation posture.
Good-law status
Full Wiesel v. Ashcraft, 26 Ariz. App. 490, 549 P.2d 585 (1976) was retrieved and read: it discusses this stock-sale decision while resolving a realty sale. That is positive bounded later treatment, not comprehensive current-law/citator clearance. needs_verification remains for exhaustive later treatment and current procedural application.
Applies in →
arizona · mccoy-v-brooks-1905 · personal-property-execution-sales-by-state
Sources
- {case, https://openjurist.org/21/ariz/624/smith-v-arizona-engineering-co, retrieved 2026-10-17} — full court-authored opinion on a nonofficial mirror.
- {case, https://openjurist.org/9/ariz/157/mccoy-v-brooks, retrieved 2026-10-17} — full earlier opinion for comparison.
- {case, https://openjurist.org/26/arizapp/490/wiesel-v-ashcraft, retrieved 2026-10-17} — full later opinion; realty context not conflated with stock procedure.
This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Verify the holding and its current treatment against the primary source and consult a licensed Arizona attorney before acting. Last verified: 2026-10-17.