Perkins v. Boyd

Colorado Court of Appeals

Perkins v. Boyd

17 Colo. App. 447

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 1902

DocketNo. 2669

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Colo. App. 447 (Perkins v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perkins v. Boyd, 17 Colo. App. 447 (Colo. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having been appealed more than, thirty days before the commencement of the January term, 1902, of this court, the record should have been lodged in the office of the cleric of this court not later than January 15, being the third day after the beginning of said term. — Code, sec. 389.

It was not so lodged, ¡however, until February 28, following.

Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground of this failure, but said motion was not filed until April 7, 1902, long subsequent to the actual filing of the record.

The code section has been directly passed upon by the supreme court in a case involving a precisely similar state of facts, and it was there held that the failure of appellants in this respect did not of itself deprive them of their appeal.—Thalheimer v. Crow, 13 Colo. 403, citing Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 103.

Upon the authority of this decision, and it further appearing that no prejudicial delay has been occasioned by the failure of appellant, the motion to dismiss will he denied. ‘ Motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause having been appealed more than, thirty days before the commencement of the January term, 1902, of this court, the record should have been lodged in the office of the cleric of this court not later than January 15, being the third day after the beginning of said term. — Code, sec. 389.

It was not so lodged, ¡however, until February 28, following.

Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground of this failure, but said motion was not filed until April 7, 1902, long subsequent to the actual filing of the record.

The code section has been directly passed upon by the supreme court in a case involving a precisely similar state of facts, and it was there held that the failure of appellants in this respect did not of itself deprive them of their appeal.—Thalheimer v. Crow, 13 Colo. 403, citing Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 103.

Upon the authority of this decision, and it further appearing that no prejudicial delay has been occasioned by the failure of appellant, the motion to dismiss will he denied. ‘ Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Colo. App. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-boyd-coloctapp-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack