Legal Opinion

Toy v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided February 4, 1946No. 15,183PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Alter

This action was brought to foreclose mechanics’ liens.

At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, defendants moved for nonsuits, which motions were granted, and thereafter judgments of dismissal entered, to review which, plaintiffs have brought the case here by writ of error.

E. S. Toy, A. F. Blair, doing business as the Blair Electric Service, W. B. Barr Lumber Company, a corporation, the Rio Grande Fuel Company, a corporation, and the Barnett Fuel & Oil Company, a corporation, were plaintiffs and lien claimants, and Sadie D. Rogers, Paul R. Emrick, and Ruby' B. Wilson were defendants.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Scott v. Baltimore & OR Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Swift & Co. v. YoungCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States National Bank v. BartgesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1949
  2. Underwriters Salvage Co. Of New York v. Davis & Shaw Furniture Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
  3. Carlson v. BainSupreme Court of Colorado · 1947
  4. W. T. Grant Co. v. CasadySupreme Court of Colorado · 1948
  5. Hodge v. TerrillSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951

6 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