Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Colo. 51

Cook v. Hughes

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 15, 1867

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1867-07-15

<p>Bill of exceptions—when neccesstwy. The copy of a note attached to a declaration and inserted in the transcript of the record by the clerk is no part of the record. It should be embodied in a bill of exceptions.</p> <p>Pbesuhftion in mpport of judgment. This court will presume that the evidence in the court below was sufficient to support the declaration, unless the contrary appear.</p>

Relies on Martin v. Ehrenfels

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1943

5 state decisions

30186718701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hallett, C. J.

¶1This was an action of assumpsit brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to the March term, 1867, of the district court of Arapahoe county. The plaintiff below declared upon a bank check for the slim of $800, made by the defendant below on the 27th day of December, 1866. The plaintiff in error did not appear in the court below, and there was judgment against him by default for the amount of the check. It is said that the proceedings of the district court were erroneous, for the reason that the check upon which the judgmen t was rendered was dated December 27, 1867, was not due at the commencement of the suit, and was not correctly described in the declaration. The check given in evidence is not before us, and, therefore, we cannot consider the questions here raised. The copy attached to the declaration, and that inserted in the transcript by the clerk, form no part of the record, and there is no bill of exceptions., Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 188; Franey v. True, 26 id. 184.

¶2The declaration describes a check due and payable at the commencement of the suit, and, as the contrary does not appear, we presume that the evidence supported the allegations of the declaration.

¶3The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

¶4Affirmed.

/1/colo/51 · .json · Public domain