Jacobs v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 10 October 1892
• Citation: 2 Colo.App. 456,31 P. 235
• Parties: JACOBS et al. v. MITCHELL.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

31 P. 235

2 Colo.App. 456

JACOBS et al. v. MITCHELL.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

October 10, 1892

Appeal from district court, Pitkin county; THOMAS A. RUCKER, Judge.

Action by W.T. Mitchell against C.H. Jacobs, E. Wilder, R.R. Bowles J.M. McMichael, and J.R. Mason to recover on three different claims. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W.W. Cooley and A. Heims, for appellants.

C.R Bell and D.J. Haynes, for appellee.

RICHMOND P.J.

Plaintiff Mitchell, brought this action for the purpose of recovering the sum of $302.50, alleged to be due upon three different claims against the defendants, which were assigned for a valuable consideration to him. Three causes of action are enumerated in the complaint, to which demurrers were interposed and overruled. Thereupon the defendants Jacobs, Wilder, Bowles, and Mason answered by general denial. Default was entered as to McMichael. The cause was tried to a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the amount claimed, with interest. Defendants seek to reverse this judgment on this appeal, and assign several errors. At the trial defendants sought to prove, under the general issue, that one Mackey furnished the funds to purchase the claims sued upon. This evidence was properly rejected by the court as immaterial and incompetent. Conceding that Mr. Mackey furnished the money for the purpose of purchasing the claims, it does not follow that the plaintiff was not the bona fide purchaser, the legal assignee of the claims declared upon, and real party in interest.

The next alleged error is in the instructions delivered by the court. The record discloses that the defendants excepted to the instructions generally, in the following language: "Defendants except to the instructions in each and every part thereof." It is a well-settled rule of the supreme court of this state that general exceptions taken in this way are not sufficient, since it is evident that they do not point out any specific objection so as to afford the trial court an opportunity for reviewing and correcting the charge, if found erroneous. Edwards v. Smith, 16 Colo. 529, 27 P. 809.

This brings us to the last and only question Did the court err in delivering the instructions orally, without consent of the defendants? No exceptions were taken to the delivering of instructions in this manner, prior to the motion for a new trial, and we do not think that the defendants are in a...