Jones v. Jones
| Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15951. |
| Parties | JONES v. JONES. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Fremont County Court; C. A. Fredrickson, Judge.
Will contest by Robert Jones against Icel May Jones as executrix of estate and as principal and residuary legatee under the last will and testament of Morris A. Jones, deceased. To review a judgment of dismissal, the contestant brings error and applies for writ of supersedeas.
Application for writ of supersedeas denied and writ of error dismissed.
Stinemeyer & Stinemeyer, of Canon City, for plaintiff in error.
Henley A. Calvert and Funston Clark, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is a will contest case, and involves the question of the legal authority of attorneys to bring a case to this court and ask for supersedeas after their client has signed a stipulation for its dismissal.
We will herein refer to plaintiff in error as Robert Jones and defendant in error as Icel May Jones. Counsel who appeared in the trial for Robert Jones sued out the writ of error herein and filed an application for supersedeas.
Morris A. Jones, a resident of Fremont county, Colorado, died testate, January 6, 1946, leaving as his sole and only heirs and legatees Icel May Jones his widow, and Robert Jones, an adopted son. His will was duly admitted to probate in the county court of Fremont county and Icel May Jones was appointed executrix of the same as provided therein. Robert Jones had theretofore signed a waiver of notice and consent that the will be admitted to probate and has accepted the legacy provided for him therein. Thereafter Robert Jones filed his petition to set aside the order admitting the will to probate which said petition the court, on September 17 1947 after a hearing, dismissed. October 8, 1947 the following stipulation for dismissal was filed in said county court:
Robert Jones had a right to control his own case. It was for him to determine if, and when, he desired to cease litigating with his adoptive mother over his adoptive father's will. Any agreement which would deprive him of that right would be void as against public policy. He had a right also to stipulate for dismissal of his case without the advice, consent or approval of his attorneys; nor does the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Feiger, Collison & Killmer
...B. It is the declared public policy of this state that parties to litigation have the right to control their own cases. Jones v. Jones, 117 Colo. 420, 188 P.2d 892 (1948). At the time the parties signed the representation agreement, that policy was incorporated in Code of Professional Respo......
-
In re Marriage of Shapard
...aggrieved, a party must have been denied some claim of right or have been burdened with a substantial obligation); see Jones v. Jones, 117 Colo. 420, 188 P.2d 892 (1948)(when a client refuses to institute or maintain an appeal, an attorney has no standing to seek review of issues which conc......
-
Abbott v. Kidder Peabody & Co., Inc.
...v. Feiger, Collison & Killmer, 903 P.2d 27, 34 (Colo.App.1994), rev'd on other grounds, 926 P.2d 1244 (Colo.1996); Jones v. Jones, 117 Colo. 420, 188 P.2d 892 (1948) (stating that it is the declared public policy of Colorado that parties to litigation have the right to control their own cas......
- Haddock v. People