Thomas v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 13 September 1897 |
| Citation | 10 Colo.App. 170,50 P. 211 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. THOMAS. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Error to district court, Arapahoe county.
Petition by John L. Thomas to set aside a decree entered by default in a suit brought against him for divorce by Clara L. Thomas. From an order overruling a demurrer to the petition, and setting aside the decree, said Clara brings error. Dismissed.
E.W. Norlin, for plaintiff in error.
W.E. Richards, for defendant in error.
Clara L. Thomas, plaintiff in error, instituted suit in the district court for a divorce from defendant. Personal service of process was had, but defendant failed to answer, or make any appearance, and on February 7, 1895, a decree of divorce was granted, On the 25th day of April following, defendant filed a petition to vacate and set aside the decree. On June 28th following, by permission of the court and consent of counsel, an amended petition was filed. To this plaintiff interposed a demurrer on the ground that it did not "state a cause of action against the plaintiff, nor state sufficient facts to entitle the defendant to a rehearing or a new trial of the above-entitled cause, if true." The demurrer was overruled by the court, and thereupon, as it appears from the record, plaintiff elected to "abide by her demurrer." It was then ordered by the court that the decree be set aside. The plaintiff brings the case here by writ of error, and seeks to have this court review the order of the district court overruling the demurrer and setting aside the decree. Plaintiff saved no exception to the order setting aside the decree, and no bill of exceptions has been filed in this court. It is decisive of the case, however, and sufficient for us to say, that neither the order overruling the demurrer nor that setting aside the decree is such a final order, judgment, or decree as can be reviewed by this court either on appeal or under writ of error. Hagerman v. Moore, 2 Colo.App. 83, 29 P. 1014; Higgins v. Brown, 6 Colo. 148. The writ of error will be dismissed. Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bussiere's Adm'R v. Sayman
...does not lie from an order of the trial court vacating a default judgment is general in the several jurisdictions. Thomas v. Thomas, 10 Colo. App. 170, 50 Pac. 211; Higgins v. Brown, 6 Colo. 148; People v. Neal, 3 Ill. App. 181; Mastin v. Indiana Car Co., 19 Ind. App. 633, 49 N. E. 981; Ker......
-
Bussiere's v. Sayman
... ... court vacating a default judgment is general [257 Mo. 316] in ... the several jurisdictions. [Thomas v. Thomas, 10 ... Colo.App. 170, 50 P. 211; Higgins v. Brown, 6 Colo ... 148; People v. Neal, 3 Ill.App. 181; Masten v ... Indiana Car Co., 19 ... ...
-
Shumake v. Shumake
...Lanty, 20 Wash. 539, 56 P. 34; Sengfelder v. Powell, 40 Wash. 686, 82 P. 931; Gray v. Haish, 2 Kan. App. 145, 43 P. 293; Thomas v. Thomas, 10 Colo. App. 170, 50 P. 211; State v. Langan, 29 Nev. 459, 91 P. Murphy's Estate, 128 Cal. 339, 60 P. 930; Rauer's Law etc. v. Standley, 3 Cal.App. 44,......
-
Thum v. Pyke
...of the Revised Statutes of Idaho as amended by the Session Laws of 1895, page 142, and should therefore be dismissed. (Thomas v. Thomas, 10 Colo. App. 170, 50 P. 211; Eastman v. Gurrey, 14 Utah 169, 46 P. Thiessen v. Riggs, 5 Idaho 21, 46 P. 829; Reitmeir v. Siegmund, 13 Wash. 624, 43 P. 87......
-
Setting Aside Default Judgments
...supra, note 13. 20. Higgins v. Brown, 6 Colo. 148 (1882); Schtul v. Christ, 132 Colo. 293, 287 P.2d 661 (1955); Thomas v. Thomas, 10 Colo. App. 170, 50 P. 211 (1897); see generally 8 A.L.R. 3d 1272 (1966). 21. General Aluminum Corp. v. Arapahoe Dist. Ct., supra, note 16. 22. Fraka v. Malern......