Hurt v. Nelson, 12107.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 12107. |
| Citation | 85 Colo. 471,276 P. 982 |
| Parties | HURT v. NELSON. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Error to District Court, Alamosa County; J. C. Wiley, Judge.
Suit by Edward B. Hurt against Martin Nelson. To review a judgment dismissing the suit after an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and granting a new trial was made plaintiff brings error.
Reversed with directions.
Albert L. Moses, of Alamosa, for plaintiff in error.
James P. Veerkamp and Herbert W. Martin, both of Monte Vista, for defendant in error.
Parties here appear as in the lower court.
Plaintiff sued defendant on a certain promissory note made by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff's order. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,270.82, which was the amount agreed upon by defendant's counsel as being due, if the note were valid.
The trial court, sua sponte, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, giving as a reason therefor that the following instruction was an erroneous statement of the issues:
The plaintiff elected to stand upon the case as presented and the suit was thereupon dismissed. Plaintiff contends that it was error for the trial court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.
The complaint alleged that the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff the note in question; that said note has matured and no part of the principal, interest, or attorney's fees provided therein has been paid. The answer of the defendant contains two paragraphs. The first admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the paper called a promissory note and denied all other allegations. The second, ambiguous in character, might be stretched into a plea of failure of consideration. This second paragraph was stricken on motion of plaintiff and no amended answer was filed.
Upon the trial, the plaintiff testified that the note was executed and delivered by defendant for a valuable consideration and had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chartier v. Winslow Crane Service Co., 19000
...trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Clifford v. Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co., 12 Colo. 125, 20 P. 333. See also Hurt v. Nelson, 85 Colo. 471, 276 P. 982; Crosby v. Canino, 89 Colo. 434, 3 P.2d 792, 78 A.L.R. The authoritative and clarifying decision is that of Mooney v. Carter, 1......
-
Mooney v. Carter
...or the ruling held to be erroneous.' Clifford v. Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co., 12 Colo. 125, 129, 20 P. 333, 335. See also, Hurt v. Nelson, 85 Colo. 471, 276 P. 982; Crosby v. Canino, 89 Colo. 434, 3 P.2d '* * * such discretion is applicable to those cases only where the trial court has reason......
-
Crosby v. Canino
... ... 439] each case ... controlling, we have often held. Hurt v. Nelson, 85 ... Colo. 471, 276 P. 982; Warshauer Co. v. Bank, 81 ... Colo. 463, 256 P. 21; Ward ... ...
-
Scott v. Matsuda
...Reservoir & Irr. Co., 60 Colo. 47, 153 P. 219; Warshauer Sheep & Wool Co. v. Rio Grande State Bank, 81 Colo. 463, 256 P. 21; Hurt v. Nelson, 85 Colo. 471, 276 P. 982; Mooney v. Carter, 114 Colo. 267, 160 P.2d 390; Fey v. Parrish, 115 Colo. 363, 174 P.2d The cause is remanded with directions......