De Witt v. Hill, 18778
| Docket Nº | No. 18778 |
| Citation | 353 P.2d 81 |
| Case Date | June 20, 1960 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
George K. Thomas, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Doyte C. Dudley, Denver, for defendant in error.
The parties to this writ of error are aligned in this court the same as they appeared in the trial court. We shall refer to them as plaintiff and defendant.
The action was one to recover damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff when a motorcycle which he was riding collided with a cow on Highway No. 6 near Frisco, Colorado. The complaint alleged that the cow was the property of defendant. The answer denied the defendant's ownership or control of the animal, and other material allegations of the complaint.
A jury was empaneled to try the issues and at the end of plaintiff's case the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From the judgment entered on this verdict, the plaintiff brings the case here.
We have carefully considered all the testimony offered by plaintiff in support of his claim and fail to find anything which sustains or tends to sustain the allegation that the cow was the property of, or under the control of, defendant.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kann
...The latter conclusion rests on the rationale that a support order is a continuing money judgment. See Hauck , 143 Colo. at 327, 353 P.2d at 81.¶ 14 In Johnson , 2016 CO 67, 380 P.3d 150, our supreme court re-examined whether laches applies as a defense to recovery of statutory interest in a......
-
Kann v. Kann, Court of Appeals No. 16CA0259
...The latter conclusion rests on the rationale that a support order is a continuing money judgment. See Hauck, 143 Colo. at 327, 353 P.2d at 81.¶ 14 In Johnson, 2016 CO 67, our supreme court re-examined whether laches applies as a defense to recovery of statutory interest in a child support e......
-
In re Johnson
...consistently held that the doctrine of laches does not apply in actions for the recovery of past due child support. See, e.g., Hauck, 353 P.2d at 81 ; accord In re Marriage of Meisner, 807 P.2d 1205, 1207 (Colo. App. 1990) ; Carey v. Carey, 29 Colo.App. 328, 486 P.2d 38, 40 (1971). Specific......