Camelin v. Smith
This text of 53 Colo. 574 (Camelin v. Smith) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court:
1. An examination of the purported bill of exceptions, shows that it was signed by the succeeding- judge, and not by the trial judge. The motion to strike it from the files will therefore be sustained. — Feckheimer v. Trounstien, 12 Colo. 282; Empire L. & C. Co. v. Engley, 14 Colo. 289; Water Supply Co. v. Tenney, 21 Colo. 284.
2. The remaining question, is whether the succeeding judge should, as a matter of right, have sustained the motion for a new trial. By the weight of modern authority, the [575]*575succeeding judge, presiding over the same court, may decide a motion for a new trial in the absence of a statute to the contrary. — People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnell, 155 Ill. 192.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 Colo. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camelin-v-smith-colo-1912.