Pring v. Brown

Supreme Court of Colorado

Pring v. Brown

42 P.2d 607, 96 Colo. 284, 1935 Colo. LEXIS 396

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedFebruary 25, 1935

DocketNo. 13,364.

StatusPublished

This text of 42 P.2d 607 (Pring v. Brown) 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

Pring v. Brown, 42 P.2d 607, 96 Colo. 284, 1935 Colo. LEXIS 396 (Colo. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Me. Justice Hilliard did not participate in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Justices Campbell, Burke and Bouck are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas Chief Justice Butler and Justices Holland and Young are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As it therefore must be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam.

Me. Justice Hilliard did not participate in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Justices Campbell, Burke and Bouck are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas Chief Justice Butler and Justices Holland and Young are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As it therefore must be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 P.2d 607, 96 Colo. 284, 1935 Colo. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pring-v-brown-colo-1935.