Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19250,19250 |
| Citation | 145 Colo. 48,357 P.2d 652 |
| Parties | Frank and Marilyn BERRY et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. WESTKNIT ORIGINALS, INC., a corporation, Nat B. Gentry, Barbara Gentry, Warren P. Isham, Everett S. Wilkins, Consumer Finance Corporation, and Century Loan Company, a corporation, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John H. Gately, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
L. A. Hellerstein, F. J. Manning, Denver, Raymond Duitch, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error Consumer Finance Corp.
Martin J. Murphy, David H. Morris, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error Century Loan Co.
The parties to this writ of error appear here in the same order as in the trial court, and we will so refer to them, or by name.
The record before us consists of the complaint, motions to dismiss filed by defendants Consumer Finance Company and Century Loan Company, and the order of the trial court granting said motions. The complaint, in a sort of package deal, lists eighty-one plaintiffs. The defendants are the persons and corporations appearing as defendants in error here. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs were induced to purchase knitting machines based on fraudulent representations and that all of the defendants participated in the fraudulent conspiracy. The causes of action asserted are inseparable and recovery against the Consumer Finance Corporation and the Century Loan Company is dependent on recovery against the other defendants. Why defendants in error, other than the Consumer Finance Corporation and the Century Loan Company were made defendants in error here does not appear. The status of the case as far as it pertains to the other defendants is not disclosed by this record.
Rule 111(a), R.C.P.Colo. states: 'A writ of error shall lie from the supreme court to: (1) A final judgment of any district, county or juvenile court in all actions or special proceedings * * *.'
The rules and our decisions do not provide for piecemeal review of a cause. Except as provided in Rule 54(b) a final judgment is one which ends the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further to be done in determining the rights of the parties involved in the action. Vandy's, Inc., et al. v. Nelson et al., 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633.
A judgment or decree is not final which determines the action as to less than all of the defendants, except as provided in Rule 54(b) as announced in Graham v. District Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. Empire Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...132 Colo. 142, 286 P.2d 341; and, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against some (but not all) of the defendants, Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652. Here, the court's order does not finally determine the rights of the members of the class as to any claim they may wis......
-
Floyd v. Coors Brewing Co.
...subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims. C.R.C.P. 54(b); Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960); Forbes v. Goldenhersh, 899 P.2d 246 Here, the trial court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's COCCA, outra......
-
Kempter v. Hurd
...v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5 (1977), quoting Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 406 P.2d 337 (1965); Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960). When the rules of civil procedure were liberalized to permit more claims and parties to be joined in one action,......
-
People v. Ong
...in each case, there remained unresolved claims or parties who were still a part of the litigation. Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc. , 145 Colo. 48, 49-50, 357 P.2d 652, 653 (1960) (court's order dismissing some but not all parties was not a final, appealable order because it did not determ......
-
How to Lose an Appeal Without Really Trying
...Court, 159 Colo. 451, 412 P.2d 428. 5. See Schoenwald v. Schoen, 132 Colo. 142, 286 P.2d 341. 6. See Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652. 7. See Carr v. Rocchio, 528 P.2d 974 (Colo. App.) (not selected for official publication). 8. C.R.C.P. 59(g). 9. See, e.g., Boa......
-
The "finality" of an Order When a Request for Attorney Fees Remains Outstanding
...the court of appeals permits it. CRS § 13-4-102.1; CAR4.2. [2] Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1986); Berry v. Westknit Originals, 357 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1961). In addition, there are some statutes that designate certain orders as "final judgments" that would otherwise not be considered ......