Doll v. Doll
This text of 345 P.2d 723 (Doll v. Doll) 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
Robert W. DOLL, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
Marilyn Earl DOLL, Defendant in Error.
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.
Robert L. Gee, Jane Woodhouse, Leonard V. Carlin, Gee, Dobbins & May, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
George O. Bakke, Theodore Epstein, Denver, for defendant in error.
DAY, Justice.
Since this writ of error has been at issue plaintiff in error has died. The orders of the trial court pertaining to alimony and support money being in personam do not survive. The order for attorney fees is not arbitrary of capricious, and we find it to be well within the sound discretion of the trial court. All other matters raised in the brief are moot.
Legal problems which have arisen since the death of plaintiff in error and which have not yet been tried cannot be presented in this court for the first time even though we permitted the administratrix of plaintiff in error's estate to be substituted in this action as plaintiff in error.
The writ of error is dismissed.
SUTTON and HALL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
345 P.2d 723, 140 Colo. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doll-v-doll-colo-1959.