Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. May
| Decision Date | 21 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19208,19208 |
| Citation | 350 P.2d 343,142 Colo. 195 |
| Parties | FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ruel F. MAY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Bannister, Weller & Friedrich, John R. Hickisch, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph P. Lewis, William C. Murray, Jr., Denver, Bentley M. McMullin, Aurora, for defendant in error.
Ruel F. May moves to dismiss the writ of error issued in this case on the ground that the matter sought to be reviewed in this proceeding is not a final judgment. The motion to dismiss is based upon Rule 54(b), R.C.P.Colo., which outlines the procedure where multiple claims are presented to a trial court and determination is made of one or more but not all of the claims.
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland brought suit on three claims. Ruel F. May was involved in all three claims, but another defendant below, Rose F. May, was a party to the first claim only. As a part of his defense, defendant Ruel F. May alleged his discharge in bankruptcy, to which a reply was allowed by the court, after which May filed his motion for summary judgment. This motion was supported by an affidavit and by certified copies of the bankruptcy proceedings.
In due course, hearing was had on the motion for summary judgment, upon the conclusion of which the court entered judgment thereon in the following words:
In part, Rule 54(b) provides that the trial court 'may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.'
Construction of this rule and its application to the entry of a summary judgment in favor of less than all the parties in a multiple claim situation was had in the case of Broadway Roofing & Supply, Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. ----, 342 P.2d 1022. Our disposition of that case furnishes a guide and precedent for the instant case. In that case we held that, in order to effect a final judgment or final disposition of the case, thus rendering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kempter v. Hurd
...with respect to those claims which have been decided. Blackburn v. Skinner, 156 Colo. 41, 396 P.2d 968 (1964); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. May, 142 Colo. 195, 350 P.2d 343 (1960). Failure of the trial court to make such an express finding is generally fatal to the appeal. Smith v. City of Arv......
-
Allied Colorado Enterprises Co. v. Grote
...g., Broadway Roofing and Supply, Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 154, 342 P.2d 1022 (1959) and Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. May, 142 Colo. 195, 350 P.2d 343 (1960). Both cases are controlling The writ of error should be, and is, hereby dismissed. ...
-
Blackburn v. Skinner
...therefore, be dismissed. Broadway Roofing and Supply, Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 154, 342 P.2d 1022; Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. May, 142 Colo. 195, 350 P.2d 343. MOORE and DAY, JJ., ...
-
Rule 54 JUDGMENTS; COSTS.
...This rule directs what must be done where multiple claims are involved and less than all of them decided. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. May, 142 Colo. 195, 350 P.2d 343 (1960). This rule specifically provides that where multiple claims are involved and less than all of them are decided, in orde......