Ray v. City of Brush
| Decision Date | 10 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20128,20128 |
| Citation | 152 Colo. 428,383 P.2d 478 |
| Parties | Bessie C. RAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF BRUSH, a municipal corporation, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John T. Dugan, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
C. H. Anderson, Brush, Myles P. Tallmadge, Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, sought both damages and a restraining order against the City of Brush concerning certain real property allegedly taken by the City; certain allegedly improperly assessed improvement district charges and other related matters.
Upon trial to the court Ray was successful in her claim for damages for the parcel of property taken, but dissatisfied with the amount awarded her. According to various comments and rulings of the trial court during the trial she was unsuccessful as to her other claims. She is here by writ of error seeking reversal.
A review of the record following oral argument in this court discloses that the only purported conclusion to the case in the trial court, as far as this writ of error is concerned, is a document labelled 'ORDER OF COURT' dated October 10, 1961 which states in pertinent part the following:
'* * * judgment is ordered entered on the issues heretofore tried between the Plaintiff and the Defendants hereinbefore announced.
'THE COURT FINDS that motion for new trial is unnecessary, and 60 days is granted within which to lodge the Reporter's Transcript.'
'DONE THIS 10th day of October, A.D. 1961.'
The announcements referred to as we find them in the record consist of the following:
1. A specific finding on Ray's first claim that she had title to certain land taken by the defendant for steet purposes and that she is entitled to $500.00 plus costs as a result of the taking;
2. Recognition of the express dismissal by stipulation of a third party complaint by the defendant city against the Millers, which is not in issue here; and,
3. Statements and comments by the trial court on the other issues as they were heard; in some cases it overruled motions and in others it stated it found for one of the parties.
Nowhere in this record do we find a compliance with R.C.P. Rule 52(a) which requires that at the conclusion of an action tried upon the facts without a jury 'the court shall find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment; and in granting or refusing interlocutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ratchford
...(en banc), and to provide the appellate court with a complete, certain record of the trial court's judgment, see Ray v. City of Brush, 152 Colo. 428, 383 P.2d 478, 479 (1963). See generally 4 C.J.S. Appeal & Error Sec. 165 (1957 & Supp.1992) (compiling cases that require entry of judgment o......
-
Rule 52 FINDINGS BY THE COURT.
...decided by it, so that on appeal, an appellate court can be fully advised as to the complete results of the trial. Ray v. City of Brush, 152 Colo. 428, 383 P.2d 478 (1963). Parties need not request findings. The provisions of this rule, that requests for findings are not necessary for purpo......