Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ruth v. Flynn

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided April 5, 1914No. Court of Appeals No. 3935Published

Error to- Denver District Court. Hon. Carlton M. Bliss,. Judge.

1Concurrence

King, J.,

specially concurring:

While agreeing with the conclusion reached by the majority of the c'ourt, and in no way dissenting- from the reasons given by the Presiding Judge for such conclusion, I wish to state the reason which most strongly 'appeals to. me. The agreement for dissolution of partnership, may be regarded as, and conceded to. be, ambiguous. In some of its provisions it is an unequivocal dissolution as of its date; in others it appears to be a present agreement for a dissolution in the future. As a whole, I regard it as more strongly indicating an intention to. effect an…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Reissner v. OxleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Fearnley v. FearnleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  3. McPhee v. YoungSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  4. Union Pac. R. Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  5. Bullock v. LewisColorado Court of Appeals · 1912

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API