Miller v. W. J. Godfrey & Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals
JjJrror to District Court of Arapahoe County. In the year 1890 parties to this suit had business transactions which are best explained by the following bill of items made by defendants, and furnished the plaintiff, the correctness of which is not challenged: The balance of $1,819.97 as shown by the statement is admitted to be correct. In September of the same year, plaintiff brought suit to recover the amount and sued out an attachment.
Read the full summary
JjJrror to District Court of Arapahoe County. In the year 1890 parties to this suit had business transactions which are best explained by the following bill of items made by defendants, and furnished the plaintiff, the correctness of which is not challenged: The balance of $1,819.97 as shown by the statement is admitted to be correct. In September of the same year, plaintiff brought suit to recover the amount and sued out an attachment. The grounds stated for attachment in the affidavit being: 1st. “ Said demand is upon an overdue book account.” 2d. “ That the defendant has failed to pay the…
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
' After striking out of the affidavit the first alleged ground of attachment the only remaining ground was, “ That the defendant had failed to pay the price of articles delivered to him, which he should have paid for upon the delivery thereof.”
This is fully and specifically traversed by the defendant, the language being, “ and he further denies that he has failed to pay the price of any article or articles delivered to him by the said plaintiff, which should have been paid for on the delivery thereof.” The issue thus formed was the only one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- H. A. Young & Co. v. LynchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883