Rosenbaum v. Buchheit
Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
Docket Number | 10343. |
Parties | ROSENBAUM v. BUCHHEIT. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1923.
Error to District Court, Boulder County; Neil F. Graham, Judge.
Suit for specific performance by C. C. Rosenbaum against Frank J Buchhit, executor of the estate of Annie Rosenbaum, deceased. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
O. A. Johnson, of Boulder, and Honan & Cook, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Goss Kimbrough & Hutchinson, of Boulder, for defendant in error.
The parties occupy the same relative position here as in the trial court.
The was an action to enforce specific performance of an alleged oral contract whereby decedent agreed, in consideration of services thereafter to be performed by plaintiff, to will to the latter her entire estate. A jury was called and sworn over the objection of defendant, and, at the close of all the evidence, dismissed by the court. On motion of defendant judgment was thereupon entered for him. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted. We quote from the brief of plaintiff in error:
We think that statement correct. Four of the forty-nine assignments are directed to it.
The cause was equitable in its nature. Plaintiff was not entitled to a jury. The grounds of the motion were 'that the pleadings do not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, * * * that the proof does not show a cause of action independent of the pleadings.' In sustaining that motion the court clearly acted within its powers, and, irrespective of the sufficiency of the complaint, the record supports that action.
Plaintiff contends that if, 'admitting, as true, all the testimony introduced by plaintiff, he was entitled to recover, then this case must be reversed'; i. e., the court having called and sworn a jury in an equity case must submit to them all questions of fact therein, and a motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence is equivalent to a demurrer thereon. The contrary of these two propositions is the law. Selfridge v. Leonard-Heffner Co., 51...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. Holt
...v. Potts, 97 Okla. 24, 222 P. 549; Crawford v. Item-mingway, 116 Okla. 192, 224 P. 198; Bancroft Prac. p. 5842: see, also Rosebaum v. Buchheit, 73 Colo. 260, 215 P. 131. ¶22 We have applied the legal rules in this case because they are conceded to be applicable hereto, and in view of the fu......
-
Miller v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County
...Selfridge v. Leonard-Heffner Co., 51 Colo. 314, 117 P. 158; Plains Iron Works Co. v. Haggott, 72 Colo. 228, 210 P. 696; Resonbaum v. Buchheit, 73 Colo. 260, 215 P. 131; Tiger Placers Co. v. Fisher, 98 Colo. 221, 54 P.2d Counsel for petitioners direct our attention to a statement contained i......
- First Nat. Bank of Strasdburg v. American State Bank of Brighton
-
Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. Holt
... ... Potts, 97 Okl. 24, 222 P. 549; Crawford v ... Hemmingway, 116 Okl. 192, 244 P. 198; Bancroft Prac. p ... 5842. See, also, Rosenbaum v. Buchheit, 73 Colo ... 260, 215 P. 131 ... We have ... applied the legal rules in this case because they are ... conceded ... ...