Givens v. Wheeler
5 Colo. 598
Opinion
The amended complaint in this case was bad, in that it stated an entirely new canse of action. This is not •allowable either at common law or under the Code. Bliss’ Plead. Sec. 429, and cases cited.
The replication was vicious for the same reason. The judgment of the court below is affirmed with costs.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Givens v. Wheeler, 5 Colo. 598 (Colo. 1881).
5 Colo. 598 (Givens v. Wheeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Connell v. El Paso Gold Mining & Milling Co.
33 Colo. 30 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1904)
Denver & Rio Grande R. R. v. Iles
25 Colo. 19 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1898)
Thompson v. White
25 Colo. 226 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1898)
Mullen v. McKim
22 Colo. 468 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Union Pac. R'y Co. v. Sternberg
13 Colo. 141 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1889)