Diebold v. Diebold
| Decision Date | 04 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 10801. |
| Citation | 74 Colo. 557,223 P. 46 |
| Parties | DIEBOLD v. DIEBOLD. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Gunnison County; Thomas J. Black, Judge.
Action by Erville S. Diebold against William A. Diebold. Defendant's motion to vacate findings for plaintiff was overruled, and defendant brings error and applies for a supersedeas.
Writ of error dismissed.
Frank L. Hays, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Stone & Kochevar, of Gunnison, for defendant in error.
This is an action for divorce. It was tried in the absence of defendant and his counsel. Findings in favor of plaintiff were made and filed. Thereafter defendant's motion to vacate such findings were overruled. Defendant brings the case here and asks that the writ of error be made a supersedeas.
There has been no final judgment entered in this case. The findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot take the place of a final judgment so as to make the proceedings leading thereto now reviewable. Hobbs v. Hobbs, 72 Colo. 190, 210 P. 398. There is no temporary alimony complained of. There has been no final judgment as to permanent alimony. In this matter the court in its findings of fact and conclusions of law provided that 'upon the granting of the divorce' the plaintiff may have execution for the collection of alimony.
The principal question argued is the propriety of the court's refusal to vacate the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon defendant's motion entitled 'motion to set aside default and judgment.' There has been no default judgment or any other final judgment. Setting aside findings, or the refusal to vacate them, is not a 'final judgment' or a reviewable order. It could only be reviewed after a final judgment. Hobbs v. Hobbs, supra.
The foregoing views dispose also of other questions presented by the assignments of error. There is nothing before us which we have the jurisdiction to review. The writ of error may be dismissed on our own motion. Unzicker v. Unzicker (Colo. Sup.) 220 P. 495. This is now done.
The writ of error is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kourbetis v. National Copper Bank of Salt Lake City
...To the same effect are 2 R. C. L. § 21, p. 39; Warren v. Wilson, 47 Nev. 259, 220 P. 242; Scammon v. Pearson, 80 N.H. 122, 113 A. 771; Diebold v. Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 223 P. Hobbs v. Hobbs, 72 Colo. 190, 210 P. 398; Ouzoonian v. Vaughan, 64 Cal.App. 369, 221 P. 958. The law is ......
-
Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson
...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.' Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d The writ of error is dismissed. STONE, C.......
-
Burks v. Maudlin
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Turnbull v. Brown
...108 Mont. 287, at pages 302, 303, 89 P.2d 1022; Woodward v. Perkins, 119 Mont. 11, at pages 14, 15, 171 P.2d 997; Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 558, 223 P. 46, 47. For these reasons and upon authority of the statutes and cases above cited I concur in the result ...