Legal Opinion
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Provolt
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided January 15, 1908No. 5310; No. 2948 C. APublishedCited by 12 opinions
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver. Eon. F. T. Johnson, Judge. Action-by T. S. Provolt and E. J. Cavanaugh, co-partners as The Employes’ Credit Company, against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company: From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Maxwell
Appellees were plaintiffs below. They brought suit against appellant to recover wages alleged to he due Corse, Patty and Palmer, employees of appellant, upon separate assignments made by the parties named to appellees.
The Corse assignment is as follows:
“Articles oe Agreement, Made and entered into this 23d day of October, A. D. 1900, by and between Employes’ Credit Company, E. J. Cavanaugh, Mgr., of Denver, Arapahoe County, Colorado, party of the first part; and P. A. Corse, of Denver, Arapahoe County, Colorado, party of the second part, WITNESSETH,
“That said party of the second part hereby…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Carroll v. City of East St. LouisIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Mallin v. WenhamIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Smith v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Welch v. MayerColorado Court of Appeals · 1894
- Home Insurance v. A. T. & S. F. R. R.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harvey Construction Co. v. ParmeleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
- Armed Forces Bank, N.A. v. HicksColorado Court of Appeals · 2014
- Jewel Tea Co. v. WatkinsColorado Court of Appeals · 1915
- Lechner v. StraussIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- Denner Enterprises, Inc. v. Barone, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.