Patrick v. Weston
| Decision Date | 01 April 1895 |
| Citation | 21 Colo. 73,39 P. 1083 |
| Parties | PATRICK et al. v. WESTON. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Lake county.
Action by A. S. Weston against W. F. Patrick and others. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Heard on motion to withdraw bill of exceptions for amendment. Sustained.
C. C. Parsons and F. L. Baldwin, for plaintiffs in error.
A. S. Weston and John A. Ewing, for defendant in error.
In the court below defendant in error, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment for upward of $5,000 upon a partnership accounting. Plaintiffs in error desire to have the proceedings of the lower court fully reviewed in this court. They are, however, precluded from having the evidence reviewed upon the record as it now stands, for the reason that the bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was reserved to the findings and judgment of the trial court, although the record proper does recite that upon the rendition of judgment 'the defendants excepted to the findings and judgment of the court, and prayed an appeal to the supreme court, which was allowed,' etc. The exceptions cannot be preserved in this manner. Rutter v. Shumway, 16 Colo. 95, 26 P. 321; Bank v. Elwood, 16 Colo. 244, 27 P. 705. It appears that since the trial in the court below there has been a change in the personnel of the judge of the district court of Lake county, so that the application to amend must of necessity come before his successor in office. This, however, presents no insuperable objection to the proposed amendment, it being an amendment to the record, and one that the court, and not the judge, may make. Pleyte v. Pleyte, 14 Colo. 452, 23 P. 1007; Id., 15 Colo. 44, 24 P. 579; Horton v. Smith, 46 Ill.App. 241; Baker v. Railroad Co. (Mo. Sup.) 26 S.W. 20. The motion for leave to withdraw the bill of exceptions for the purpose of presenting the application to amend to the district court will be granted. Motion sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rio Grande Southern R. Co. v. Nichols
...95, 26 P. 321; Commissioners v. First Nat. Bank, 8 Colo.App. 371, 46 P. 618; Van Duzer v. Towne, 12 Colo.App. 4, 55 P. 13; Patrick v. Weston, 21 Colo. 73, 39 P. 1083; Nat. Bank v. Elwood, 16 colo. 244, 27 P. 705; Fryer v. Breeze, 16 Colo. 323, 26 P. 817. 8. Error is assigned on the ruling o......
-
Kirkwood v. School Dist. No. 7 in Summit County
...taken, but that is not sufficient. Exceptions to a judgment must be preserved by bill. A journal entry will not suffice. Patrick v. Weston, 21 Colo. 73, 39 P. 1083; Rutter v. Shumway, 16 Colo. 95, 26 P. 321; Nat. Bank v. Ellwood, 16 Colo. 244, 27 P. 705; Board County Com'rs v. Skinner et al......
-
Cook's Estate v. Fiedler
...on grounds that do not appeal to us as forcibly as those here presented: Pleyte v. Pleyte, 15 Colo. 44, 24 P. 579; Patrick et al. v. Weston, 21 Colo. 73, 74, 39 P. 1083; McKenzie v. Murphy, 29 Colo. 485, 487, 68 P. 838; et al. v. Beck, 43 Colo. 70, 71, 95 P. 297. In the case of Jewel v. Sai......
-
Bradbury v. Alden
...used is inconsistent with the supposition that an exception to a judgment is requisite where the trial is by a jury. In Patrick v. Weston, 21 Colo. 73, 39 P. 1083, court declined to review the evidence upon the record, for the reason that the bill of exceptions did not show that any excepti......