Burks v. Maudlin
| Decision Date | 30 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 15124. |
| Citation | 109 Colo. 281,124 P.2d 601 |
| Parties | BURKS v. MAUDLIN. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Moffat County; Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Suit to quiet title by Mrs. Anna C. Maudlin against Edna L. Burks, wherein defendant filed a motion to make Lovetta Skiles a third party plaintiff. To review an order denying the motion, the defendant brings error.
Writ of error dismissed.
E. G. Vanatta, of Craig, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Pughe, of Craig, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error here seeks to have reviewed an order of the district court denying her motion to make one Lovetta Skiles, a third party plaintiff in a pending suit to quiet title brought by defendant in error and in which plaintiff in error appeared as a defendant. The motion is said to be grounded upon Rule 14, R.C.P.Colo., and assertedly is supported by certain affirmative allegations of the answer of plaintiff in error.
Save in the exceptional instances mentioned in (a)(2), (3) and (4), Rule 111, R.C.P.Colo., a writ of error lies to a final judgment only. The practice under the Code was analogous (section 425). The order herein questioned comes within none of the foregoing exceptions and is not a final judgment. As to the requirements of such, see Boxwell v. Greeley Union National Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179. The order being interlocutory, questions with respect thereto may be presented only on a review of the final judgment. Where it appears on review that there is no final judgment, as is here disclosed, the writ of error will be dismissed. Marysville & Colorado Land Co. v. Heyde, 93 Colo. 523, 27 P.2d 498; Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 223 P. 46; Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 P. 488.
Accordingly the writ of error is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. Empire Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...Denying a motion to add additional parties, Weaver v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 146 Colo. 157, 360 P.2d 807, Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601; striking allegations of a complaint, Jernigan v. Lakeside Park Co., 136 Colo. 141, 314 P.2d 693; allowing intervention, Groendyke Tr......
-
Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson
...Heyde, 93 Colo. 523, 27 P.2d 498; Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 223 P. 46; Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 P. 488.' Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601. The writ of error is STONE, C. J., and HOLLAND, J., dissenting. ...
-
Morron v. McDaniel
...Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 P. 792; Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat. Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179; Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601; Slifka v. Viettie, 110 Colo. 138, 131 P.2d 417; J. & R. A. Savageau, Inc., v. Larsen, 117 Colo. 229, 185 P.2d 1012; Julius Hy......
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Samuel R. Rosoff, Limited
...and cites as authority for it, Judge Dobie in the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad case, supra, and a Colorado State case, Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601. last mentioned case was decided on local rules respecting appeals, and the Colorado court found that such an order did not come ......