Hix v. Stanchfield

Supreme Court of Colorado

Hix v. Stanchfield

238 P.2d 200, 124 Colo. 422, 1951 Colo. LEXIS 217

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided October 29, 1951·No. No. 16,522·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Alter did not' participate in the consideration of this cause.

Mr. Chief Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Knauss are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas, Mr. Justice Holland, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Clark think that it should be reversed.

The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed by operation of law because of an evenly divided court, and no [423] good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f),.R.C.P. Colo.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Alter did not' participate in the consideration of this cause.

Mr. Chief Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Knauss are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas, Mr. Justice Holland, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Clark think that it should be reversed.

The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed by operation of law because of an evenly divided court, and no [423] good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f),.R.C.P. Colo.

Judgment affirmed.

Hix v. Stanchfield, 238 P.2d 200, 124 Colo. 422, 1951 Colo. LEXIS 217 (Colo. 1951).

Pincite

238 P.2d 200 (Hix v. Stanchfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.