Taylor v. Derry
| Decision Date | 27 November 1893 |
| Citation | 35 P. 60,4 Colo.App. 109 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. DERRY. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Arapahoe county court.
Action by William Derry against Charles E. Taylor and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, Charles E. Taylor appeals. Affirmed.
Coe & Carpenter, for appellant.
William R. Barbour and William M. Maguire, for appellee.
On the 18th day of May, 1892, William Derry, plaintiff below, recovered judgment against the defendant, Charles E. Taylor, for $105. On the same day defendant prayed an appeal to this court, which was allowed, and 60 days given him within which to prepare and tender his bill of exceptions. On the 8th day of July, 1892, upon defendant's motion, the court made another extending this time 30 additional days. It appears from the record that no notice of the motion was given to the plaintiff or his attorney, and that the order was made ex parte. Section 372 of the Civil Code provides that written notice of motions shall be required in all cases except those made during the progress of a trial. The sections following fix the time of notice before the hearing, and prescribe the manner of its service. These Code requirements are jurisdictional. Except upon proper notice, the court was without power to make the order; and, having been made ex parte, it is void. Mallan v. Higenbotham, 10 Colo. 264, 15 P. 352; Nevitt v. Crow, 1 Colo.App. 453, 29 P. 749. The bill of exceptions was not tendered until the 8th day of August, 1892, long after the expiration of the time originally allowed for that purpose. The order, being void, did not operate to extend the time; and the bill of exceptions is therefore improperly in the record. A motion in the court below to vacate the order was unnecessary. A jurisdictional question may be raised for the first time in the appellate court. The case was commenced before a justice of the peace. There are no written pleadings to apprise us of the nature of the plaintiff's demand. The bill of exceptions cannot be considered; and as, therefore, none of the evidence in the case is before us, we are bound by the presumption that the judgment is correct, and it is accordingly affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fried v. Guiberson
... ... which to present bill of exceptions; this is clearly contrary ... to all good practice, if not contrary to law. ( Taylor v ... Dare, 4 Colo.App. 109; Dicky v. Bruce, 21 ... Ill.App. 448; New Albany Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 16 Ind ... 402; cases reported in 19 Ind ... ...
-
Nance v. People ex rel. Sheedy
...the provisions of the Code cited, was entitled to notice of these applications. Nevitt v. Crow, 1 Colo.App. 453, 29 P. 749; Taylor v. Derry, 4 Colo.App. 109, 35 P. 60; Mallan v. Higenbotham, 10 Colo. 264, 15 P. 352. He had right to be heard in opposition to each. Without notice he was depri......
- Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co.
-
Abernethy v. Wright
...operate to extend the time, and the appeal bond approved and filed October 10th would not give this court jurisdiction of the case. Taylor v. Derry, supra. motion in the court below to vacate the order was not necessary to enable this court to review the question raised as to the validity o......