Barndollar v. Patton

Supreme Court of Colorado

Barndollar v. Patton

5 Colo. 29

DecidedApril 15, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Colo. 29 (Barndollar v. Patton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barndollar v. Patton, 5 Colo. 29 (Colo. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion.in - this .case must be allowed. Deficiencies in the record cannot be supplied by ex piarte affidavits. If the defendant in error desires to have the sheriff amend his return, he must apply to the court below. The affi[30]*30davit might be considered in support of a motion for a stay of proceedings in this conrt until such application could be made, but there is no such motion interposed, and the affidavit must be stricken from the files. The case of De Armond et al. v. Adams et al. 25 Ind. 457, cited by the defendant in error, does not lay down any different practice, as is claimed.

Motion allowed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The motion.in - this .case must be allowed. Deficiencies in the record cannot be supplied by ex piarte affidavits. If the defendant in error desires to have the sheriff amend his return, he must apply to the court below. The affi[30]*30davit might be considered in support of a motion for a stay of proceedings in this conrt until such application could be made, but there is no such motion interposed, and the affidavit must be stricken from the files. The case of De Armond et al. v. Adams et al. 25 Ind. 457, cited by the defendant in error, does not lay down any different practice, as is claimed.

Motion allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Colo. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barndollar-v-patton-colo-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack