Commercial Co. v. Higbee

6 Citing cases

  1. French v. Haarhues

    287 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1955)   Cited 8 times
    In French v. Haarhues, 132 Colo. 261, 287 P.2d 278, cited by defendants in error, no judgment appeared in the record and the judgment was not designated as a part of the record.

    * * *" Nelson v. Centennial Cas. Co., 130 Colo. 66, 273 P.2d 121. Under like circumstances as above quoted, it becomes the duty of the trial court to grant a dismissal of the action. We have held that on review the rule requiring the inclusion of the judgment is mandatory, and in the absence thereof the writ of error should be dismissed. Martin v. Way, Rec., 86 Colo. 232, 280 Pac. 488; Commercial Credit Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792; Slifka v. Viettie, 110 Colo. 138, 131 P.2d 417; J. and R. A. Savageau, Inc. v. Larsen, 117 Colo. 229, 185 P.2d 1012; Howard v. American Law Book Company, 121 Colo. 5, 212 P.2d 1006; Morron v. McDaniel, 127 Colo. 180, 254 P.2d 862. Our study of the record presented here, as well as the briefs submitted, justifies a statement that even if the record was in all respects in compliance with our rules, nevertheless no judgment could properly be entered for plaintiffs.

  2. Morron v. McDaniel

    254 P.2d 862 (Colo. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    " Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Colo. 184, 2 Pac 922. To the same effect: Flint v. Powell, 10 Colo. App. 66, 50 Pac. 45; County Court v. Eagle Rock Gold Mining and Reduction Co., 50 Colo. 365, 115 Pac. 706; Goodknight, Admr. v. Harper, 70 Colo. 41, 197 Pac. 237; Commercial Credit Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792; Boxwell v. Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868; Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601; Slifka v. Viettie, 110 Colo. 138, 131 P.2d 417; Savageau v. Larsen, 117 Colo. 229, 185 P.2d 1012; Hyman Company v. Velsicol Corp., 119 Colo. 121, 201 P.2d 380. There being no final judgment in the record, this in itself is sufficient to require their dismissal of the writs of error; therefore, other specifications need not be considered.

  3. Stonebraker v. Konugres

    188 P.2d 894 (Colo. 1948)

    Entry of final judgment is a prerequisite to the right to prosecute error. Rule 111 (a) (1), R.C.P. Colo.; Commercial Credit Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792; Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 Pac. 488; J. R. A. Savageau v. Larsen, 117 Colo. 229, 185 P.2d 1012. The writ of error is dismissed, but without prejudice to further appropriate proceedings in the court below.

  4. Savageau v. Larsen

    185 P.2d 1012 (Colo. 1947)   Cited 9 times

    Rule 112, R.C.P. Colo., provides, inter alia: "There shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court a properly folioed true copy of the matter designated by the parties, which shall always include, whether or not designated, copies of the following: The material pleadings without unnecessary duplication, the verdict or the findings of fact and conclusions of law together with the direction for the entry of judgment thereon, the master's report, if any, the opinion, if any, the judgment or part thereof to be reviewed, and the designations or stipulations of the parties as to the matter to be included in the record." This rule requiring the inclusion of the judgment in the record is mandatory, and, without a compliance therewith, there is nothing for this court to review; consequently, an order of dismissal should be entered. Commercial Credit Company v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792. We find in our court files in this case "An Application for Supersedeas and Request for Determination of Appeal Thereon.

  5. Melville v. Weybrew

    120 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    In this situation error cannot be predicated on an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. See, Code, section 425; Siebers v. Labor Finance Corporation, 100 Colo. 40, 64 P.2d 1263; Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 Pac. 488; Commercial Credit Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792; Andrews v. Loveland, 1 Colo. 8, and Boxwell v. Greeley Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868. We pass now to the consideration of assignments numbered 1, 4, 5 and 8, all of which pertain to the alleged error of the court in refusing to discharge the receiver upon the motion of plaintiffs in error.

  6. Crews-Beggs Co. v. Bayle

    40 P.2d 233 (Colo. 1934)

    Only from final judgment in a case of the nature presented does error lie. Code 1921, ยง 425. "If there is no final * * * judgment * * * obviously there is nothing * * * to review." Meyer v. Brophy, 15 Colo. 572, 25 Pac. 1090. See, also, Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 Pac. 488; Commercial Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 Pac. 792. In the circumstances of the record the writ is without office, perforce whereof the application for supersedeas has no basis.