Reuss v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Reuss v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

73 P.2d 987, 101 Colo. 356, 1937 Colo. LEXIS 308

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided May 24, 1937·No. No. 14,068.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

We heretofore affirmed this'judgment in department on the sole ground of defective abstract and assignments and on the authority of Zall Jewelry Co. v. Stoddard, 68 Colo. 395, 397, 190 Pac. 506. On petition of plaintiff in error a rehearing was granted and the cause *357 transferred to the court en banc. On further examination and careful consideration of the abstract and assignments, but more particularly of the original bill of exceptions, it clearly appears that no summons was in fact served. The point is that the alleged summons was unsigned, and this is admitted. It therefore had no validity and its service gave no jurisdiction. Steedle v. Woolston, 88 N. J. L. 91, 95 Atl. Rep. 737; Ware v. Mosher, 52 Colo. 318, 320, 121 Pac. 751. The objection being jurisdictional, we have elected to ignore defective abstract and assignment, if such they be, and look to the whole record, as we have repeatedly held may be done in a proper case. Miller v. People, 23 Colo. 95, 97, 46 Pac. 111; Dailey v. Aspen Pub. Co., 46 Colo. 145, 146, 103 Pac. 303; Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. 695. Deeming this such, the result is inevitable. The former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

We heretofore affirmed this'judgment in department on the sole ground of defective abstract and assignments and on the authority of Zall Jewelry Co. v. Stoddard, 68 Colo. 395, 397, 190 Pac. 506. On petition of plaintiff in error a rehearing was granted and the cause *357 transferred to the court en banc. On further examination and careful consideration of the abstract and assignments, but more particularly of the original bill of exceptions, it clearly appears that no summons was in fact served. The point is that the alleged summons was unsigned, and this is admitted. It therefore had no validity and its service gave no jurisdiction. Steedle v. Woolston, 88 N. J. L. 91, 95 Atl. Rep. 737; Ware v. Mosher, 52 Colo. 318, 320, 121 Pac. 751. The objection being jurisdictional, we have elected to ignore defective abstract and assignment, if such they be, and look to the whole record, as we have repeatedly held may be done in a proper case. Miller v. People, 23 Colo. 95, 97, 46 Pac. 111; Dailey v. Aspen Pub. Co., 46 Colo. 145, 146, 103 Pac. 303; Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. 695. Deeming this such, the result is inevitable. The former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed.

Reuss v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 73 P.2d 987, 101 Colo. 356, 1937 Colo. LEXIS 308 (Colo. 1937).

Pincite

73 P.2d 987 (Reuss v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related