Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Ellis

Colorado Court of Appeals

Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Ellis

22 Colo. App. 393

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 1912

DocketNo. 3416

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Colo. App. 393 (Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Ellis, 22 Colo. App. 393 (Colo. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant, as plaintiff below, brought this action in the county court of Yuma county to quiet title to certain lands in Yuma county. Defendants Ellis and Clark answered, and also by cross complaint asked that title to the land in question be quieted in them. Shea disclaimed. On the trial plaintiff offered two certain tax deeds which were held by the court to be void on their face, and therefore inadmissible. These deeds, so offered by plain[394]*394tiff, constituted its sole evidence of title. They were each void on their face for various reasons not necessary to point but. Indeed, appellant .makes no claim in its brief to the contrary, hut contents itself with certain objections to appellees’ title which cannot be raised by appellant, under the ruling in Foster v. Clark, 21 Col. App., 192; 121 Pac., 130.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant, as plaintiff below, brought this action in the county court of Yuma county to quiet title to certain lands in Yuma county. Defendants Ellis and Clark answered, and also by cross complaint asked that title to the land in question be quieted in them. Shea disclaimed. On the trial plaintiff offered two certain tax deeds which were held by the court to be void on their face, and therefore inadmissible. These deeds, so offered by plain[394]*394tiff, constituted its sole evidence of title. They were each void on their face for various reasons not necessary to point but. Indeed, appellant .makes no claim in its brief to the contrary, hut contents itself with certain objections to appellees’ title which cannot be raised by appellant, under the ruling in Foster v. Clark, 21 Col. App., 192; 121 Pac., 130.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Colo. App. 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-ranch-cattle-co-v-ellis-coloctapp-1912.