Wood v. Hazelet
| Citation | 237 P. 151,77 Colo. 442 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 11251. |
| Parties | WOOD v. HAZELET. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Department 3.
Error to District Court, Grand County; Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Action by J. I. Hazelet against W. H. Wood. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
F. J. Knauss, of Denver, and Hugh Gilmore, of Hot Sulphur Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Edward M. Auslender, of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is an action to recover for labor performed under an oral contract. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $442.95 and interest. Defendant sued out this writ, and applies for a supersedeas.
The verdict was for $442.95. The court, in its judgment, added the interest, and error is assigned to its so doing. It is not claimed that the verdict includes interest. Moreover, it is assumed on both sides that it does not. The record shows that the court regarded the interest as a matter of law, and reserved its computation for itself. This is not a case where the jury refused to allow interest. In St Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Oliver, 17 Okl. 589, 87 P. 423, 10 Ann.Cas. 748, it was held that, where it is unquestionably clear that the jury allowed no interest, or where the court reserved the question of allowance of interest until after verdict, and it is clearly ascertainable from the verdict or from uncontroverted facts, the court may make the computation, and add the interest to the verdict. To the same effect is Collins v. Gleason Coal Co., 140 Iowa 114, 115 N.W 497, 118 N.W. 36, 18 L.R.A. (N. S.) 736, and Reed v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 25 F. 886. There was no error in adding the interest to the amount of the verdict, in view of the further fact that there is no dispute as to plaintiff's being entitled to the interest.
It is contended that the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. While plaintiff was the only witness for himself, that fact alone does not support the contention above mentioned. 23 C.J. 19. There is no reason, in this case, for upholding the contention upon any ground.
The plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed to pay him at the rate of $3.75 per day; the defendant insisted that the amount agreed to be paid was $3 per day. Error is assigned to the court's refusal to permit defendant to show that plaintiff had a similar controversy with another employer. There was no error in refusing this evidence.
Error is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
...prejudgment interest under Colorado law if the damages awarded include an inflation adjustment. See id. (quoting Wood v. Hazelet, 77 Colo. 442, 237 P. 151, 152 (1925)). In fact, the Lowell decision, which reversed the district court's decision not to award prejudgment interest, actually sup......
-
Lowell Staats Min. Co., Inc. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc.
...Co., 645 F.Supp. at 259. The district court did not err in reserving the issue of interest computation to itself. Wood v. Hazelet, 77 Colo. 442, 237 P. 151, 152 (1925). [W]here it is unquestionably clear that the jury allowed no interest, or where the court reserved the question of allowanc......
-
Coleman v. United Fire and Cas. Co.
...754 P.2d 431 (Colo.App.1988). The trial court's findings should be clearly ascertainable from uncontroverted facts. Wood v. Hazelet, 77 Colo. 442, 237 P. 151 (1925). Here, the trial court's finding that the cost of replacement was $11,000 was not based on uncontroverted facts. The estimates......
-
Pierson v. United Bank of Durango, 85CA1627
...The record reveals that the trial court made these findings which were clearly ascertainable from uncontroverted facts. Wood v. Hazelet, 77 Colo. 442, 237 P. 151 (1925). Therefore, the award was If the trial court erred in including Hopkins in the verdict form and in the judgment entered th......