Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Korngold v. Wray
Citations: 9 Ariz. App. 594; 455 P.2d 276; 1969 Ariz. App. LEXIS 501Docket: No. 2 CA-CIV 636
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; June 9, 1969; Arizona; State Appellate Court
A peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the court, requiring Tucson Radio, Inc. and its officers, Alvin and Joyce Korngold, to transfer 25 shares of stock to petitioners Helen Wray, Gerald Hirsch, Clague A. Van Slyke, and Lawrence Ollason. The petitioners had acquired these shares at a judicial sale on March 11, 1966. The corporation, which is closely held, has numerous issues, including failure to file reports with the Arizona Corporation Commission for 1966 and 1967, lack of a statutory agent, and no notification of a management change. The stock is deemed valueless, and the corporation is financially distressed. After unsuccessful attempts to register the stock through meetings, the petitioners filed for a writ of mandamus on March 20, 1968. The respondents did not file a responsive pleading but presented the stock at a hearing on April 8. The court allowed them to submit a memorandum by April 12, which was later refiled on May 3 due to being unverified. On May 13, the court ordered the stock to be registered as requested but subsequently received a notice of appeal from Alvin Korngold. Four errors were alleged in the appeal: 1) a writ of mandamus cannot compel stock transfer; 2) petitioners lacked a valid cause of action; 3) the statute of limitations had expired; and 4) the appropriate action should be conversion. The court found the second allegation to be decisive, referencing Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, where it was determined that an alternative writ must contain all elements of a claim for relief to confer jurisdiction. In this case, the alternative writ did not adequately state grounds for relief, even though the accompanying application did. Consequently, the court vacated the previous judgment, aligning with the restrictive rule established in Emery, despite concerns about its fairness. Chief Justice Molloy and Justice Hathaway concurred in the decision.