Legal Opinion

De La Mar v. Hurd

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 15, 1878PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Probate Court of Clear CreeJc County. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtElbert, J.

This is an action of wrongful detainer under section 3 of the act concerning forcible entry and detainer. R. S., p. 332.

What purports to be a bill of exceptions is neither signed nor sealed by the judge, and cannot be considered.

Under the assignments it only remains to consider the sufficiency of the complaint.

To the complaint it is objected, that, while it shows privity between the plaintiff and the defendant, Fannie A. De La Mar, it shows no privity between the plaintiff and the defendant, Frank De La Mar, her husband.

The defendants appeared in the action and filed a joint and several…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Marshall Silver Mining Co. v. KirtleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
  2. Williams v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
  3. Gates v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  4. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  5. Hurd v. McClellanColorado Court of Appeals · 1892

1 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