Opinion
Aug. 18, 1970.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 182
Eugene Deikman, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Collier, Hayden & Sweeney, George T. Sweeney, Denver, for defendants in error.
DUFFORD, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under the authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The defendants in error, Paul Burch and Hall and Hall, a copartnership, were the plaintiffs below. They brought suit against Richard Priest, Lenora F. Priest, and Ellis L. Priest for payment of a real estate broker's commission. A motion to dismiss the action as to the defendant Ellis L. Priest was granted by the trial court. The propriety of such action by the trial court is not challenged in this appeal, and Richard Priest and Lenora F. Priest constitute the only plaintiffs in error.
Upon conclusion of the trial, a motion for new trial on behalf of the plaintiffs in error was filed by their trial counsel, which counsel is not the attorney representing these parties on this appeal. The motion alleged the following grounds for a new trial:
'1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment of this Court are not supported by sufficient facts and evidence.
'2. That the Court errored (sic) as a matter of law.'
Under the ruling of Martin v. Opdyke Agency, Inc., 156 Colo. 316, 398 P.2d 971, and the provisions of R.C.P.Colo. 59(f), the only questions which can be considered on review are those which are dealt with in some degree of specificity in the motion for a new trial. The motion for new trial in this case contains the same broad and general language which was held to be insufficient in the Martin case, and accordingly the points of error raised in this appeal for the first time will not be considered.
There is, however, a question of parties which can be properly disposed of on this appeal. Plaintiffs in error have asserted that the trial court made no disposition of this case insofar as the claim of Hall and Hall, a partnership, is concerned, and also insofar as the possible liability of Richard Priest may be involved. The record reveals that such assertions are correct. On this appeal defendants in error have affirmatively stated that they have no objection to a dismissal of the claim of Hall and Hall or to a dismissal of all claims which might exist against Richard Priest, and we feel such dispositions as to these parties should be made. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the plaintiff in error Lenora F. Priest. However, this case is remanded with directions that the trial court enter its order dismissing with prejudice any claim of Hall and Hall, a partnership, and that it grant the motion to dismiss which was previously filed on behalf of the defendant Richard Priest.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and DWYER, J., concur.