Bennett v. Kresse

Supreme Court of Colorado

Bennett v. Kresse

483 P.2d 384, 174 Colo. 200

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedApril 5, 1971

DocketNo. 23298

StatusPublished

This text of 483 P.2d 384 (Bennett v. Kresse) 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

Bennett v. Kresse, 483 P.2d 384, 174 Colo. 200 (Colo. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Groves

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error seeks reversal of the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff in error, Mrs. Bennett, was precluded from testifying under the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 154-1-2, the “dead man’s statute.” The subject matter of this suit was reviewed by this court in Kresse v. Bennett, 151 Colo. 549, 379 P.2d 807 (1963). In that opinion this court ruled that, unless Mrs. Bennett consented to a reduction of the award for exemplary damages within ten days after the issuance of the remittitur from the court, the judgment would be reversed as to the issue of damages, and a new trial ordered on that issue alone. Nothing transpired for approximately three and one-half years after this ruling, or until shortly after Mrs. Kresse’s death, when application was made by Mrs. Bennett to set the issue for trial on the issue of damages. At this trial, Mrs. Bennett sought to testify as to her transactions with the decedent. Upon objection by the defendant administrator, the trial court precluded such testimony on the authority of the above mentioned statute. There was [202]*202tendered a written offer of proof, detailing the testimony Mrs. Bennett would give if permitted. Mrs. Bennett then rested her case without offering any further evidence. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. After studying the record and considering the arguments presented, we perceive no error in the ruling of the trial court and, therefore, affirm.

Mr. Justice Kelley, Mr. Justice Lee and Mr. Justice Erickson concur.

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

Mr. Justice Groves

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error seeks reversal of the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff in error, Mrs. Bennett, was precluded from testifying under the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 154-1-2, the “dead man’s statute.” The subject matter of this suit was reviewed by this court in Kresse v. Bennett, 151 Colo. 549, 379 P.2d 807 (1963). In that opinion this court ruled that, unless Mrs. Bennett consented to a reduction of the award for exemplary damages within ten days after the issuance of the remittitur from the court, the judgment would be reversed as to the issue of damages, and a new trial ordered on that issue alone. Nothing transpired for approximately three and one-half years after this ruling, or until shortly after Mrs. Kresse’s death, when application was made by Mrs. Bennett to set the issue for trial on the issue of damages. At this trial, Mrs. Bennett sought to testify as to her transactions with the decedent. Upon objection by the defendant administrator, the trial court precluded such testimony on the authority of the above mentioned statute. There was [202]*202tendered a written offer of proof, detailing the testimony Mrs. Bennett would give if permitted. Mrs. Bennett then rested her case without offering any further evidence. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. After studying the record and considering the arguments presented, we perceive no error in the ruling of the trial court and, therefore, affirm.

Mr. Justice Kelley, Mr. Justice Lee and Mr. Justice Erickson concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 P.2d 384, 174 Colo. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-kresse-colo-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack