Hecht v. Wright

• Decision Date: 12 January 1903
• Citation: 31 Colo. 117,72 P. 48
• Parties: HECHT v. WRIGHT.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

72 P. 48

31 Colo. 117

HECHT v. WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Colorado

January 12, 1903

Appeal from District Court, Arapahoe County.

Action by Charles Hecht against Mary Wright.From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.Appeal dismissed.

W Henry Smith and O. A. Erdman, for appellant.

Gondy &amp Twitchell, for appellee.

STEELE J.

The appellant began suit in the district court of Arapahoe county to recover the sum of $354.90 for milk delivered to the defendant in April and May, 1901, under a written contract in part as follows: 'Broomfield, Colo., Feb. 1, 1901.This agreement, entered into between Mrs. Mary Wright, party of the first part, and Chas. Hecht, party of the second part.The party of the first part agrees to buy all of the party of the second part's milk for one year at the following prices: * * * The milk to be delivered at factory at Broomfield every morning.'The defendant answered that the milk delivered to her under this contract had been adulterated by the plaintiff by the addition of large quantities of water, and she filed a cross-complaint for damages on account of such adulteration.Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for the sum of $200, and the plaintiff appeals to this court.

A motion is now made to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the amount involved is not large enough to give this court jurisdiction.It is contended by the appellant that we have jurisdiction, because his rights in the litigation are to some extent controlled by an act of the Legislature approved April 17, 1893, entitled 'An act to preserve the public health, to create local boards of health, to define the duties and powers of such boards and to make certain acts misdemeanors, and provide for the punishment thereof, and to repeal all acts in conflict herewith'(Laws 1893, p. 376 c. 133), section 69 of which is in part as follows: 'It shall be unlawful for any person, either by himself or agent to sell or expose for sale within the state of Colorado any unwholesome, watered or adulterated or impure milk'(Id.p. 394, c. 133).He questions the constitutionality of this act upon the grounds that it impairs the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the federal and state constitutions and that more than one subject is embraced within the act.The statute was passed long before the contract was made.The contract was not for the sale of milk and water, but the appellant...