Littell v. Brayton Motor & Accessory Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Action in replevin. Judgment for plaintiff. On Application for Supersedeas. Error to the District Court of Pueblo County, Hon. Samuel D. Trimble, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke
This was an action in replevin brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error for the possession of an automobile, and the parties are hereinafter designated as in the court below. Trial was had to the court without a jury and judgment was entered for plaintiff. To review that judgment defendant brings error.
There are forty-seven assignments of error, most of which are unjustified and unargued. We confine ourselves to the principal contentions.
The theory of plaintiff, and the basis of the judgment, is that one Edmundson owned the car in question; that he mortgaged it to plaintiff;…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dunlop v. MercerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Ellison v. TuckermanColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
- Ellison v. TuckermanColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
- Elliott v. First National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1902
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hennessy v. Automobile Owners' Ins.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Braham & Co. v. Steinard-Hannon Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- UNITED FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. PerezSupreme Court of Colorado · 1966
- Williams v. StringfieldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1924
- Rocky Mountain Seed Co. v. McArthurSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.