Pantel v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Pantel v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.

435 P.2d 761, 164 Colo. 480, 1968 Colo. LEXIS 847

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 8, 1968

DocketNo. 22773

StatusPublished

This text of 435 P.2d 761 (Pantel v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.) 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

Pantel v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., 435 P.2d 761, 164 Colo. 480, 1968 Colo. LEXIS 847 (Colo. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in error are here seeking reversal of a judgment entered against them in the amount of $928.52. This judgment resulted from the fact that they became sureties on an appeal bond in an action originally filed in the county court in which F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., recovered a judgment against Arthur R. White.

[481]*481The Pantels argue that the appeal bond which was executed by them was a nullity, and, further, that when the district court conducted a trial de novo and entered a judgment against White, and ultimately against them, it was without jurisdiction. There is no merit to the argument of plaintiffs in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Pringle not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in error are here seeking reversal of a judgment entered against them in the amount of $928.52. This judgment resulted from the fact that they became sureties on an appeal bond in an action originally filed in the county court in which F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., recovered a judgment against Arthur R. White.

[481]*481The Pantels argue that the appeal bond which was executed by them was a nullity, and, further, that when the district court conducted a trial de novo and entered a judgment against White, and ultimately against them, it was without jurisdiction. There is no merit to the argument of plaintiffs in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Pringle not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 P.2d 761, 164 Colo. 480, 1968 Colo. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantel-v-f-a-heckendorf-inc-colo-1968.