Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 13816.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | 13816. |
| Citation | 50 P.2d 791,97 Colo. 523 |
| Parties | HULL v. DENVER TRAMWAY CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W Steele, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by H. G. Hull opposed by the Denver Tramway Corporation. The claim was rejected by the Industrial Commission, and judgment was rendered adverse to claimant in the District Court, and claimant brings error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Clyde Campbell, R. B. Garrison, and Fred Pferdesteller, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Gerald Hughes, W. A. Alexander, and Cecil M. Draper, all of Denver for defendant in error Denver Tramway Corporation.
Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and M. S. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission.
On motion to dismiss writ of error in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The claim having been rejected by the commission, claimant brought this action in the district court, where, July 31, 1935, judgment went against him. Writ of error issued September 13, 1935.
In the circumstances, the statute (Sess. Laws 1931, p. 825, § 1, amending original section 106 [C. L. § 4480]) required the clerk of the district court to return the record to the commission 'within twenty-five days after the Order or Judgment of the Court, unless in the meantime, a writ of error addressed to the District Court shall be obtained from the Supreme Court for the reviewing of such Order or Judgment.' We have said that this section 'operates as a short statute of limitations.' Kosmos v. Industrial Commission, 96 Colo. 90, 39 P.2d 780. Also, that it is an 'express mandate in form, * * * mandatory in substance.' General Chemical Co. v. Thomas, 71 Colo. 28, 203 P. 660, 661. 'Only to this section may we look when determining within what time a writ of error seeking review of a proceeding based on the general act must be obtained.' Lawrence v. Industrial Commission, 91 Colo. 179, 13 P.2d 261, 262. The sum of the doctrine is that an aggrieved party has only 25 days within which to sue out a writ of error.
Counsel opposing the motion to dismiss, no less than those proposing subscribe to the salutariness of the rule developed through the decisions reviewed above. They urge, however, that since well within the period of 25 days they had prepared their bill of exceptions for the judge's signature, but due to his absence it was not signed until after such time, the delay in procuring the writ of error was unavoidable, and that the rule should be varied accordingly. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Motorbuses
...Freeport Motor Cas. Co. v. Madden, 354 Ill. 486, 188 N.E. 415;City of Moberly v. Lotter, 266 Mo. 457, 181 S.W. 991;Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791; Ridgely v. Bennett, 13 Lea, Tenn., 206. It may be sued out in all cases where it is applicable, and is issuable subject......
-
Peterson v. People
...clerk of the trial court to certify the record for review. See In re Jones, 704 P.2d 845, 847 (Colo.1985); Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 525, 50 P.2d 791, 792 (1935). Although the court of appeals must have a certified record to review an appeal, the appellate court is not div......
-
Estate of Jones, Matter of, 84SC190
...is to require the clerk of the district court from which the appeal is taken to certify the record for review. Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935). The notice of appeal is not a "pleading" within the strict definition of the term, nor was it required to be served ......
-
Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 15455.
... ... The ... practice is exceedingly simple.' Hull v. Denver ... Tramway Corporation, 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d ... ...
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...Appeal", see 42 Colo. Law. 29 (June 2013). Appeal is a matter of right. Monti v. Bishop, 3 Colo. 605 (1877); Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935); Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 111 Colo. 515, 143 P.2d 685 (1943). Appeal is adequate remedy to judgment......
-
Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.
...Appeal", see 42 Colo. Law. 29 (June 2013). Appeal is a matter of right. Monti v. Bishop, 3 Colo. 605 (1877); Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935); Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 111 Colo. 515, 143 P.2d 685 (1943). Appeal is adequate remedy to judgment......
-
Rule 10 RECORD ON APPEAL.
...the clerk of the court in which the judgment complained of is entered to certify the record for review. Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935); Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 111 Colo. 515, 143 P.2d 685 (1943). This rule retains a vestige of the bill of......
-
Rule 3 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT — HOW TAKEN.
...the clerk of the court, in which the judgment complained of is entered, to certify the record for review. Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935); Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 111 Colo. 515, 143 P.2d 685 (1943); People v. Bost, 770 P.2d 1209 (Colo. 198......