Legal Opinion
Hays v. Arbuckle
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided December 4, 1922No. 10,180PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Whitford
The action was for money lent. Plaintiff in error makes the contention that the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The complaint, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
“I. That on or about the 17th day of June, 1915, at Los Angeles, Cal., the plaintiff lent to the defendant at his request the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
“II. That the defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof.
*329“And for a second and further cause of action:
“I. That on or about the 6 day of July, 1915, at Los Angeles, Calif., the plaintiff lent to the defendant at…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carson v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Browne v. SteckSupreme Court of Colorado · 1873
- Talcott v. MarstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
- Wilcox v. JamiesonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- Craig v. DeweySupreme Court of Colorado · 1918
3Cited by10 opinions
- United Telecommunications, Inc., a Kansas Corporation v. American Television and Communications Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- AE, INC. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2007
- Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1975
- Prospero Associates v. Redactron Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1983
- Anderson-Thompson, Inc. v. Logan Grain CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.