Russell v. Daniels
Colorado Court of Appeals
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County.
1Opinion of the CourtBissell, P. J.
This was a proceeding under chapter 19 of the code to revive a judgment. The petition contained all the requisite averments to entitle the petitioners to maintain the proceeding. From it and the proof it appears that in October, 1874, W. B. Daniels & Co., recovered a judgment for -1450 and costs against Russell & Swink, who were then copartners. In the November following an execution was issued, which was returned in February entirely unsatisfied. The proof *225showed that at this time, and for many years afterwards, Russell & Swink were entirely solvent, and engaged in transacting a mercantile…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Rector, Etc. v. . TeedNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Baker v. StonebrakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Angell v. MartinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Bellows v. SowlesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Hewett v. CurrierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gering v. School DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1906