From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reuss v. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc
May 24, 1937
73 P.2d 987 (Colo. 1937)

Opinion

No. 14,068.

Decided May 24, 1937. On rehearing judgment reversed November 15, 1937.

Suit on contract. Judgment for plaintiff.

On Rehearing. Former Opinion Withdrawn and Judgment Reversed.

1. PROCESS AND WRITS — Summons — Jurisdiction. An unsigned summons has no validity and its service confers no jurisdiction on the court.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Defective Record — Jurisdictional Questions. Although abstract of record and assignments of error may be defective, the objections raised being jurisdictional, the appellate court may ignore the defects and pass upon the questions presented.

Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. James C. Starkweather, Judge.

Mr. W. DAVID McCLAIN, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. THEODORE J. ADAMS, Mr. ROYAL C. RUBRIGHT, Mr. WILLIAM W. GAUNT, for defendant in error.


[1, 2] We heretofore affirmed this judgment in department on the sole ground of defective abstract and assignments and on the authority of Zall Jewelry Co. v. Stoddard, 68 Colo. 395, 397, 190 Pac. 506. On petition of plaintiff in error a rehearing was granted and the cause transferred to the court en banc. On further examination and careful consideration of the abstract and assignments, but more particularly of the original bill of exceptions, it clearly appears that no summons was in fact served. The point is that the alleged summons was unsigned, and this is admitted. It therefore had no validity and its service gave no jurisdiction. Steedle v. Woolston, 88 N. J. L. 91, 95 Atl. Rep. 737; Ware v. Mosher, 52 Colo. 318, 320, 121 Pac. 751. The objection being jurisdictional, we have elected to ignore defective abstract and assignment, if such they be, and look to the whole record, as we have repeatedly held may be done in a proper case. Miller v. People, 23 Colo. 95, 97, 46 Pac. 111; Dailey v. Aspen Pub. Co., 46 Colo. 145, 146, 103 Pac. 303; Lombard v. Overland D. R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. 695. Deeming this such, the result is inevitable. The former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Reuss v. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc
May 24, 1937
73 P.2d 987 (Colo. 1937)
Case details for

Reuss v. Rawleigh Co.

Case Details

Full title:REUSS ET AL. v. W. T. RAWLEIGH COMPANY, INC

Court:Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc

Date published: May 24, 1937

Citations

73 P.2d 987 (Colo. 1937)
73 P.2d 987

Citing Cases

McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co.

All it requires is that the summons be signed by the clerk. Dwight v. Merritt, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 4 F. 614;…

Brown v. Amen

However, since the record does not reveal whether the served summons was signed, we must presume from the…