14 F. 634 (D.Colo. 1882), Newman v. Newton

Citation:14 F. 634
Party Name:NEWMAN and others v. NEWTON and others. [1]
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 634

14 F. 634 (D.Colo. 1882)

NEWMAN and others


NEWTON and others. 1

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

October Term, 1882

Charles J. Thompson, for plaintiffs.

L. S. Dixon, for defendants.


Ejectment in the district court of Lake county to recover the Jessie Clark lode; thence removed into this court. Answer filed in this court May 12, 1880, denying plaintiffs' title to the Jessie Clark lode, and setting up title in the defendants to the same ground as the Virginius lode. Under section 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the claim of a defendant in ejectment to the premises in controversy, under a location differing from that from which plaintiff derives title, is regarded as new matter, requiring a replication. After providing that a defendant may deny the allegations of the complaint, or disclaim any interest in the premises, the section declares that 'the answer may also state generally, as in the complaint, the character of the estate in the premises, or any part thereof, which the defendant claims, or any right of possession or occupancy he claims.'

This serves to bring into the case new facts, requiring a denial from the plaintiff, and, if not denied, they are, by section 72 of the Code, to be taken as true. In that view, and according to the practice of the court, on the sixth day of July, 1880, nearly two months after the answer was filed, defendants took judgment against plaintiffs for want of a replication. This was at the May term, 1880, of the court, which was adjourned July 10th of that year. After the court adjourned for the term, and on the nineteenth day of July, 1880, the counsel who had obtained the judgment entered into a stipulation with counsel, representing the plaintiffs, to the effect that

Page 635

the judgment should be set aside on some rule-day, or on the first day of the next term of the court, with leave to plaintiffs to reply to the answer; and the stipulation was filed in the cause.

It is said that at the time judgment was entered one of the counsel for defendants, Mr. Bates, had agreed with plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Thompson, to give further time for filing a replication to plaintiffs' answer; and Mr. Green, who was also counsel for defendants, in ignorance of that agreement, took judgment against plaintiffs. These circumstances led to the stipulation before mentioned. The judgment was not, in fact, set aside at the time specified in the...

To continue reading