New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill

7 Colo. 100, 4 Colo. L. Rep. 385
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided December 15, 1883·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

7 Colo. 100 (New York & Brooklyn Mining Co. v. Gill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)