Town of Idaho Springs v. Filteau

10 Colo. 105
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided April 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Stallcup, C.

The case is submitted upon the question, Is the town liable for that it had granted leave to the Sunshine Mining Company to build a flume in the street? The decision in the case of City of Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113, is decisive that the town is not liable.

The judgment should be reversed and the case remanded, with directions to the county court to dismiss the action.

Macon and Rising, CO., concur.

[107]*107Pee Curiam.

For the reasons assigned in the foregoing opinion the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, witMirections to the court below to dismiss the action.

Reversed.

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

Town of Idaho Springs v. Filteau, 10 Colo. 105 (Colo. 1887).

10 Colo. 105 (Town of Idaho Springs v. Filteau) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luxford v. City & County of Denver
65 Colo. 355 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1918)
City of Colorado Springs v. Stark
57 Colo. 384 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Wadsworth v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.
18 Colo. 600 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1893)