Ginsberg v. Bennett, 14514.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | 14514. |
| Citation | 104 P.2d 142,106 Colo. 285 |
| Parties | GINSBERG et al. v. BENNETT et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Suit for an accounting by Hilda Ginsberg and another against Horace W. Bennett and another. To review a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Silverstein & Silverstein and G. Dexter Blount, all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Benedict & Phelps, of Denver, for defendants in error.
This cause, a suit for accounting, previously was Before us as case No. 13,883, Ginsberg v. Bennett, 101 Colo. 121, 71 P.2d 419. Therein, for reasons stated in the opinion which also recites the facts generally pertinent to the controversy, we remanded the cause for further proceedings to determine the propriety of the inclusion of certain items of expense in the account submitted by the defendants. When the matter came on for hearing in the district court after the remand defendants offered in evidence a new itemized statement, the accuracy of which was not questioned, showing the amounts of the collections and disbursements of rental during the entire period, and disclosing a substantial deficiency in receipts. Defendants then rested and the plaintiffs introduced the entire transcript of the record heretofore Before us in Case No. 13,883, supra, and a new exhibit purporting to be a copy of the advertisement of the public trustee's sale. No further evidence was offered by either party.
From such evidence the trial court determined that even after the elimination as credits of the items questioned in our opinion, the rental receipts, to the extent of $7,559.60, had failed to cover the legitimate disbursements, as a consequence of which there was no surplus for distribution to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the district court, consistently with our mandate, dismissed the action against defendants at plaintiffs' costs. Plaintiffs here assign error to such judgment.
Every question now raised by plaintiffs was presented in their original briefs and motion for rehearing in Case No. 13,883 and therein were determined adversely to them. Under such circumstances it is not permissible to resubmit questions previously decided in the former proceeding in error, since the opinion therein and the judgment entered in conformity therewith constituted 'the law of the case,' which must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaBlanc v. People
...Case A is the law of the case, except as to any change that might have been wrought by the testimony of Mr. Sherman. Ginsberg v. Bennett, 106 Colo. 285, 104 P.2d 142 (1940). III Defendant, relying on Wade, contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was placed in police l......
-
U.S. Nat. Bank of Denver v. Bartges
...hearing we do not consider them further, except to quote a pertinent paragraph from the opinion of Mr. Justice Knous in Ginsberg v. Bennett, 106 Colo. 285, 104 P.2d 142, as follows: 'Every question now raised by plaintiffs was presented in their original briefs and motion for rehearing in C......
-
People v. Montoya, 26460
...quoted ruling is the law of the case. U.S. National Bank of Denver v. Bartges, 122 Colo. 546, 224 P.2d 658 (1950), Ginsberg v. Bennett, 106 Colo. 285, 104 P.2d 142 (1940). Judgment affirmed. ERICKSON, J., concurs in the result. 1 The author of this opinion dissented in Turner, but not on ac......
-
Water Rights in Water Dist. No. 32, In re, 24836
...case that a determination regarding abandonment and estoppel has been made, and that these matters are Res judicata. Ginsberg v. Bennett, 106 Colo. 285, 104 P.2d 142 (1940). Abandonment and estoppel cannot be asserted in the attack on the defendant's The conclusion by the trial court in the......