Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Mining Co.

4 Colo. 111
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided April 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

4 Colo. 111 (Kirtley v. Marshall Silver Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)