Legal Opinion

Russell v. Daniels

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Rector, Etc. v. . TeedNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Baker v. StonebrakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
  3. Angell v. MartinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
  4. Bellows v. SowlesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
  5. Hewett v. CurrierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gering v. School DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API