New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Court of Summit County. The grounds of the motion to quash the service in the court below were: “First. For the reason, that the affidavit upon which said order was made is not nor was not sufficient to authorize the clerk to make said order of publication. “ Second. That said order is not in accordance with sections 41 and 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of Colorado. “ Third.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court of Summit County. The grounds of the motion to quash the service in the court below were: “First. For the reason, that the affidavit upon which said order was made is not nor was not sufficient to authorize the clerk to make said order of publication. “ Second. That said order is not in accordance with sections 41 and 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of Colorado. “ Third. That from said order it does not appear that the same was signed or issued either by the clerk of the court or any of his deputies, or under the seal of this court.”
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, C. J.
The appellant company was defendant below, and by its counsel moved the district court to quash the service of the summons, which was by publication. This motion was denied. The answer of said *101company was thereupon filed, and a trial of the issues had before a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellee, from which judgment the said .company have prosecuted this appeal.
All the errors assigned relate to the refusal of the court below to quash the service of the summons.
The alleged errors were all waived by the appearance and answer of the defendant company.
The judgment is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Campbell Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- Loveland's Estate v. Union National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
- Burnett v. MeyerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925