Legal Opinion

Ruth v. Smith

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1901No. 4122PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to the County Court of Mineral County.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Campbell

Plaintiff’s avowed intent was to state a cause of action under subdivision 9 of section 3 of the unlawful detainer act of 1885 (1 Mills Ann. Stat. § 1973), providing that, “ When a vendee, having obtained *155possession under an agreement to purchase lands, or tenements, and having failed to comply with his agreement, withholds possession 'thereof from his vendor, or assigns, after demand therefor being duly made,” he shall be deemed and held guilty of an unlawful detention of real property. A demurrer was interposed by the defendant on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tucker v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
  2. Thomas v. Colorado Nat. BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  3. Garbanati v. FassbinderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
  4. Jones v. StevensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1867
  5. Gallup v. WilderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1871

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Oconto Co. v. BaconWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Hurd v. FordUtah Supreme Court · 1929
  3. American Mortgage Co. v. LoganSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
  4. White v. WidgerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
  5. Dennison v. BarneySupreme Court of Colorado · 1911

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

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

Powered by the Exa API