Fuller v. Swan River Placer Co.

5 Colo. 123
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided December 15, 1879·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants below jointly prayed an appeal, which was “granted upon condition that they hie their appeal bond” within a time limited. The bond hied is not a compliance with the conditions; it is executed by a part of the defendants only. Two who joined in the prayer for the appeal do not execute the bond.

In the case of Andre v. Jones, 1 Col. 489, it was held that a joint appeal of two could not be prosecuted by one only. The statute authorizes one of several defendants to remove a cause to this court by appeal, and in such case he is permitted [124] to use the names of all the defendants if necessary. (Sess. Laws 1879, p. 226, Sec. 30.)

This, however, does not affect the rule that a joint appeal by all the defendants, allowed upon the condition of filing a joint bond, must be prosecuted by all. Andre v. Jones, 1 Col. 489; Watson v. Thrall, 3 Gilm. 69; Johnson v. Barber, 4 Gilm. 1.

It is not necessary to notice the other objections.

The motion to dismiss is allowed.

Dismissed.

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

Fuller v. Swan River Placer Co., 5 Colo. 123 (Colo. 1879).

5 Colo. 123 (Fuller v. Swan River Placer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnston v. Geary
33 P.2d 757 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)
Tate v. Holly
21 Colo. App. 451 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1912)
Tanquary v. Howard
35 Colo. 125 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1905)
Diamond Tunnel Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Faulkner
14 Colo. 438 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)