Legal Opinion

Scott v. Woodhams

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 24, 1926No. 11,569PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Allen

The defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the same has been brought too late, and in violation of our rule 18 which provides: “A writ of error shall not be brought after the expiration of one year from the rendition of the judgment complained of.”

On May 29,1924, the plaintiff in error, Dora Scott, obtained a judgment for $7,064.62 against the defendants in error W. H. Woodhams and Hattie Woodhams, and also obtained a foreclosure of a mortgage. The judgment further provided that if the money arising from the sale under the foreclosure shall…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Little Pittsburg Con. Min. Co. v. Little Chief Con. Min. Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  2. Knauf v. Dover Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1911
  3. County Court of Denver v. Eagle Book Gold Mining & Reduction Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  4. Polk v. ButterfieldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
  5. Hoehne v. TrugilloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1869

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ernst v. ColburnSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
  2. Mountain States Implement Co. v. AraveIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Scott v. WoodhamsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API