Bruce v. Endicott

13 Colo. App. 269
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bruce v. Endicott. Read the opinion of the Court — 16 Colo. App. 506
Colorado Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 1899·No. No. 1627·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have here a printed document, which is labeled “ Abstract of Record.” The very most that can be said for it is that it is an index, probably incomplete, of the record. It does not show the date of the filing of any of the papers in the court below; it contains no statement whatever of the contents of any pleading; it sets forth none of the points relied on for a reversal; it contains nothing to mate the assignment of errors intelligible; it does not indicate that any judgment in favor of either party was ever rendered in the cause; it is not even an attempt at compliance with our rules. It exhibits nothing for the court to act upon. Weiland v. Potter, 6 Colo. App. 451; Gottlieb v. Frost, 6 Colo. App. 452; Brewing Co. v. Howlett, 6 Colo. App. 559; Grant v. Leach, 8 Colo. App. 261; Otto v. Hill, 11 Colo. App. 431; Kelley v. Boyle, 12 Colo. App. 38; Johnson v. Spohr, 12 Colo. App. 317.

The appeal will be dismissed.'

Bismissed.

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

Bruce v. Endicott, 13 Colo. App. 269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1899).

13 Colo. App. 269 (Bruce v. Endicott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gottlieb v. Frost
6 Colo. App. 452 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Ph. Zang Brewing Co. v. Howlett
6 Colo. App. 558 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Grant v. Leach
8 Colo. App. 261 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Johnson v. Spohr
12 Colo. App. 317 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1898)