Lapham v. Phillips

The defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ under rule 8, because there was no motion for new trial nor order dispensing therewith. The plaintiff in error replies that there was no occasion for a motion because no question of fact was involved in the case, and he cites Armstrong v. Gresham, 70 Colo. 502, 202 Pac. 706, Fincher v. Bosworth & Co., 76 Colo. 69, 230 Pac. 596, Steere v. McComb, 71 Colo. 190, 205 Pac. 526 and Ahart v. Sutton, 79 Colo. 145, 244 Pac. 306. We think the motion must he granted.

The facts in the present case necessary to understand the question presented by this…