Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Mining Co.

4 Colo. 111
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Colo. 111 (Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Mining Co.) 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.

Bluebook
Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Mining Co., 4 Colo. 111 (Colo. 1878).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this cause, a demurrer was interposed to the bill, which, by stipulation of parties, was heard in vacation. The demurrer was sustained, and the complainants failing to plead over, a decree dismissing the bill was entered up in vacation. This was error. In vacation, under the old system of practice, the judge had no authority to render the decree. The court alone had power to hear and determine the issue raised by the demurrer. To hold' that the decree is valid would be to assert that parties may [112]*112confer j urisdiction by consent, which cannot be admitted. Filley v. Cody, ante, p. 109.

The decree is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

Related

Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Douglas
1921 OK 153 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Dunn v. Carrier
1913 OK 490 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Terpening v. Holton
9 Colo. 306 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Colo. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirtley-v-marshall-silver-mining-co-colo-1878.