Peabody v. Thatcher
3 Colo. 275
Opinion
The judgment below was for costs merely, and does not relate to a franchise or a freehold.
Ho appeal lies, therefore. Rev. Stat., Ch. lxx., § 41.
It is true the defendant below has joined in error, and so has consented to the appeal. The doctrine of Mollandin v. The Colorado Central Railroad Co. (ante, p. 173), however, is that such consent is ineffectual to confer jurisdiction. We are unable to follow those courts which announce a contrary doctrine. Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peabody v. Thatcher, 3 Colo. 275 (Colo. 1877).
3 Colo. 275 (Peabody v. Thatcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Meyers v. Williams
324 P.2d 788 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1958)
Haley v. Elliott
20 Colo. 199 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1894)
McClaskey v. Lake View M. & T. Co.
18 Colo. 65 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1892)
Crane v. Farmer
14 Colo. 294 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)