McRobbie v. Higginbotham

11 Colo. 312
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 Colo. 312 (McRobbie v. Higginbotham) 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
McRobbie v. Higginbotham, 11 Colo. 312 (Colo. 1888).

Opinion

Stallcup. C.

It is argued here that the court erred in striking out or dismissing the petition of intervention, and in maintaining this action. It does not appear that [316]*316there was any error against appellant in the court’s order denying the intervention. We do not, however, concede that any question upon this order could arise in any way upon this appeal, as the order was against the intervenor and not against the appellant. The evidence touching the proceedings for injunction and receiver, in the case referred to, does not in any way show that the temporary restraining order made therein constituted any reason against the maintenance of this action or defense to the same. The judgment should be affirmed.

De France and Rising, CO., concur.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons above given in the opinion of Commissioner Stallcup the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Winship v. May
7 Colo. App. 355 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Colo. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrobbie-v-higginbotham-colo-1888.