Mathers v. Bardwell

Colorado Court of Appeals

Mathers v. Bardwell

25 Colo. App. 373

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1914

DocketNo. 3799

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Colo. App. 373 (Mathers v. Bardwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mathers v. Bardwell, 25 Colo. App. 373 (Colo. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have examined the entire record in this case with care. The controversy presented in the briefs and on the trial below springs entirely from the fact that the plaintiff plead one contract, and relied thereon, while the defendants, in their answer, set np an entirely different contract, and sought, by way of counter-claim (which, but for the contract that defendants averred, they would clearly not be entitled to) to recover damages from the plaintiff. All of the differences between the parties can be fairly ascribed to this situation. Plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to support the judgment which the trial court, without a jury, rendered in his behalf. To demonstrate the correctness of the foregoing conclusions would require an analysis of the pleadings, for which we can perceive no justification.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We have examined the entire record in this case with care. The controversy presented in the briefs and on the trial below springs entirely from the fact that the plaintiff plead one contract, and relied thereon, while the defendants, in their answer, set np an entirely different contract, and sought, by way of counter-claim (which, but for the contract that defendants averred, they would clearly not be entitled to) to recover damages from the plaintiff. All of the differences between the parties can be fairly ascribed to this situation. Plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to support the judgment which the trial court, without a jury, rendered in his behalf. To demonstrate the correctness of the foregoing conclusions would require an analysis of the pleadings, for which we can perceive no justification.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Colo. App. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathers-v-bardwell-coloctapp-1914.