New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill

7 Colo. 100, 4 Colo. L. Rep. 385
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedDecember 15, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 7 Colo. 100 (New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill) 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
New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill, 7 Colo. 100, 4 Colo. L. Rep. 385 (Colo. 1883).

Opinion

Beck, C. J.

The appellant company was defendant below, and by its counsel moved the district court to quash the service of the summons, which was by publication. This motion was denied. The answer of said [101]*101company was thereupon filed, and a trial of the issues had before a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellee, from which judgment the said .company have prosecuted this appeal.

All the errors assigned relate to the refusal of the court below to quash the service of the summons.

The alleged errors were all waived by the appearance and answer of the defendant company.

The judgment is therefore affirmed with costs. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Burnett v. Meyer
236 P. 994 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1925)
Loveland's Estate v. Union National Bank
25 Colo. 499 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1898)
Campbell Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. Marsh
20 Colo. 22 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Colo. 100, 4 Colo. L. Rep. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-brooklyn-mining-co-v-gill-colo-1883.