Burkhardt v. Haycox
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. Action for the conversion of personal property. AMENDED SECTION 34 OF CODE.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. Action for the conversion of personal property. AMENDED SECTION 34 OF CODE. “ The summons shall state the parties to the action, the state, county and court in which it is brought, and require the defendant to appear and answer the complaint within twenty days after the service of the summons, if served in the county in which the action is brought; or if served out of such county or by publication, within thirty days after the service of the summons, exclusive of the day of service, or that judgment by default will be taken against him according…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Elliott
The assignments of error assail the judgment of the court below upon two grounds: Pirst, that the summons does not conform to the requirements of the code; second, that the complaint was not filed within the time prescribed by law.
1. Mere dilatory motions based upon special appearances are not favored under the present practice. It is the policy of the code that all its provisions shall be liberally construed with the view to assist parties in obtaining justice, and that errors and defects in pleadings or proceedings not affecting the substantial rights of the parties shall be disregarded by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Knight v. FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. NichollsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
- Smith v. AurichSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Farris v. WalterColorado Court of Appeals · 1892
3Cited by14 opinions
- Taylor v. HakeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
- Cunningham v. BostwickColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Goodman v. City of Ft. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Saner v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1902
- Smith v. SmithColorado Court of Appeals · 1899
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.