Volume 21 — Colorado Reports

This.suit was instituted by plaintiff in error, The John Mouat Lumber Company, a corporation, against the city of Denver, for the purpose of determining who had the better right to those portions of Twenty-Sixth and Twenty-Seventh streets between Blake street and the railroad grounds, as marked upon Case & Ebert’s addition to the city of Denver. See plat. In the district court plaintiff suffered a nonsuit at the conclusion of its testimony.

An action was instituted in the district court of Arapahoe county by The Colorado Savings Bank against William Lock-hart Smith, Ferdinand C. Fischer and others, to foreclose a deed of trust upon lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, in block 231, in Denver, Arapahoe county, Colorado, together with the leasehold interest in said property, and fixtures and furniture in the theater building situate thereon.

Original Proceeding. The resolution and question submitted by the senate are as follows: “ Whereas a question has arisen involving the duty of the senate, in the matter of its action upon certain nominations which have been presented by the governor for the action of the senate: ■ “ Therefore be it resolved, that the following question be submitted to the supreme court by the senate, with a request for an opinion thereon: “The governor having, under section 45 of the charter…

This action was brought by Edward I. Rosenfeld against his wife, Katie J. Rosenfeld, for a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The defendant filed an answer specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint. She also filed a cross complaint, but as counsel claims nothing thereunder, it need not be considered.

Mas Schwartz, the appellant, who was plaintiff below, brought his action against Sigmund Birnbaum, the appellee and defendant, to recover the sum of $258.41, which plaintiff alleged to be due upon a contract, and that the demand sued upon was on an overdue book account.

Original Proceeding. “Whereas, the revision and constitution committee in their report on house bill No. 20.3, Feb. 20, 1895, a bill for au act to regulate the weighing of coal at mines, etc., have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to recommend that,- in the opinion of this committee, the bill is unconstitutional, for the reason that the privilege of all American citizens under our constitution is abridged, inasmuch as the right to contract is taken away. ' But…

Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court is in response to the following preamble and resolution: “ Whereas, a bill for an act declaring eight hours’ labor, a day’s work, is now pending in the house of representatives of the tenth general assembly; and, “Whereas, there is a difference of opinion among the members of the house as to the legality of such a measure should it nrnvide — that, it should, only apply toJ^Jh^mrs-iynw ployed and working in mines, smelters and…

Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court is in response to the following resolution of the house of representatives: “ Whereas, the question has been raised by certain members of the house of representatives of the state of Colorado as to the constitutionality of house bill No. 107, “ Therefore, resolved, that it is the desire of the house of representatives of the tenth general assembly of the state of Colorado that they have the opinion in writing of the honorable…

<p> Appeal from, the County Court of Pithin County. </p>

Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court is in response to the following preamble and interrogatories: “ Whereas, provision is made in and by section 2 of senate bill No. 293 for the consolidation of certain towns and cities with larger cities, said section being in the following words, namely: ‘“Sec. 2.

<p>1. Appellate Practice — Constitutional Questions, how Raised and Reserved.</p> <p>Courts will not, on the mere assertion of counsel that a statute is invalid because of noncompliance with some constitutional requirement in its passage, examine the journals of the respective houses to ascertain the fact. The party seeking to question its validity upon this ground must in some way present the facts upon which he relies to the trial court; and if he desires to have the decision of that court reviewed, he must, by bill of exceptions, make such proof a part of the record. .</p> <p>2. Same — Questions for Review.</p> <p>Generally, questions to he reviewable in this court or in the court of appeals must have been passed upon in the court below, and exceptions to its rulings duly preserved.</p>

Original Proceeding-. The opinion of the court as to the constitutionality of the act whose title is above given is in response to the following preamble and resolution: “Whereas, there has been introduced into the house of representatives of the state of Colorado, and there is now pending in said body, house bill No. 168, a copy of which is hereto attached, which bill provides, among other things, for the repeal of section one and three of an act to provide for the…

This is a suit in equity by Samuel V. Vaugbn against the defendants in error to set aside certain conveyances alleged to be fraudulent.

Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court was delivered in response to the following communication and interrogatory propounded by the governor. “ To the Honorable, the Supreme Court of Colorado: “ Whereas: — Section 3 of article VI of the constitution of the state of Colorado as amended provides that the supreme court shall give its opinion upon important questions, upon solemn occasions, when required by the governor.

Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court as to the constitutionality of the foregoing bill is in response to the following preamble and resolution: “ Whereas, there has been introduced into the senate of the tenth general assembly substitute for senate bill No. 83, which bill has passed the senate and is now before the house of representatives for consideration, entitled, ‘A Bill for an Act Providing for the Belief and Appropriating Money for the Benedictine Sisters of…

<p>1. Exceptions — How Preserved.</p> <p>Exceptions to tlie findings and judgment must be preserved by bill. A journal entry will not suffice.</p> <p>2. Amendment — Bill oe Exceptions.</p> <p>A bill of exceptions is amendable upon application to the court below, and leave to withdraw the bill for the purpose of presenting such application may be obtained in this court. The application must be to the court, notwithstanding a change in the personnel of the judge thereof since the trial.</p>

Hrror to the County Court of Yuma County. J. Douglas Grady, the defendant in error, brought an action to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate, executed by one Wickliff Newell on the 29th day of November, 1887, and given to secure a promissory nóte of even date therewith for the sum of $535, payable May 29,1888. This mortgage was recorded on the 29th day of December, 1887.

<p>1. Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>The regularity of proceedings upon which, a defendant has been convicted of a capital offense will not be reviewed upon habeas corpus. The remedy is by writ of error.</p> <p>2. Practice in Criminal Cases — Supersedeas.</p> <p>A defendant under sentence for a capital offense is given a remedy by writ o'f error, with an absolute right to a superseded,s to stay execution of the sentence pending a hearing and determination</p>

Action commenced in the district court of Summit county by appellants, C. H. Pike and others, as plaintiffs, for possession of government lands claimed as a placer claim.

■ The appellee moves to strike the bill of exceptions from the files in this case. It appears that within the time fixed by the court for the filing of the bill of exceptions the appellant tendered to the judge a bill including the transcript of the testimony as ¡prepared by the appellant’s private stenographer. At the trial the court stenographer, was present, and took down the testimony and the rulings and decisions of the court made during the progress of the trial.

The complaint in this case alleges that plaintiff Higbee is the owner, in fee simple, and entitled to the possession of a certain quarter section of land situate in Bent county, Colorado ; that before the bringing of this action the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully and forcibly entered upon and took possession of the same, and ousted the plaintiff therefrom, and still continue unlawfully and wrongfully to withhold and retain from plaintiff the possession of the same.

This is an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien which, if it accrued at all, arose after the amendments of the mechanic’s lien act of 1889 went into effect. Davidson, the plaintiff, was employed by one Sipole, a subcontractor, to do work upon a railroad grade of which* the defendant railway company was the owner. D. D. Streeter was the original contractor, but was not made a party defendant to this action.

On March 18, 1891, an indictment was returned into the district court of Arapahoe county, charging the defendant, under the name of Charles Harris, with keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to confinement in the jail of Arapahoe county. From that judgment, by writ of error, he went to the court of' appeals, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

<p> Error to the County Court of Arapahoe County. </p>

The appellant, as the owner in fee of the following land, situate in the city and county of Pueblo, and described as follows: “ Beginning at a point on the east line of Santa Fé avenue two hundred and fifty-six (256) feet north of the north line of Ninth street, in the city of Pueblo, in said county; thence north, along the east line of said Santa Fé avenue, eighty (80) feet; thence east three hundred and fiftj'-two (352) feet; thence south eighty (80) feet; thence west…

The cause was heard in the district court upon the amended complaint and answer and motion for a judgment upon the pleadings. This motion was sustained, and judgment rendered in favor of appellant. The defendant brings the case here upon appeal. The pleadings are as follows: ■ “The plaintiff complains of the defendant and alleges: “ 1.

<p> Frror to the District Court of FI Paso County. </p>

. Plaintiff in error was tried in the district count of Arapahoe county upon an indictment for the larceny of. a check of the value of $5,000 from one Adam Hjorth,. In a second count he was charged with .larceny as bailee.. He was convicted of the crime of larceny and sentenced, accordingly. To review the judgment, he brings the case here upon writ of error.

Action upon fire insurance policy. Trial to the court. Findings and judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. “ The plaintiffs complain of the defendant and allege: “First. That the defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Illinois. “ Second.

<p>1. Administration — Widow’s Award.</p> <p>The county court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside the widow’s award. Although the statute does not expressly provide that the award of the appraisers to the widow of the dece dent shall be approved by the court, such has been the practice , but such approval carries with it no greater dignity than attaches to a judgment in an ordinary civil action.</p> <p>2. Practice.</p> <p>Orders granting or refusing a new trial are not final judgments from which an appeal can be taken or to which a writ of error lies.</p> <p>3. Same — Review oe Interlocutory Proceedings.</p> <p>If reviewable errors have been committed in interlocutory proceedings leading up to final judgment, they can be reviewed only when the final judgment is properly brought up for review.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>A writ of error does not lie to an order of the county court setting aside the widow’s award and ordering a new appraisement.</p>

Prior to the year 1891, in this state the only compensation given to county and precinct officers, with the exception of county assessors, was the fees prescribed by the legislature and collected by such officers in the discharge of their official duties.

Error of the County Court of La Plata County. The sheriff and the board of county commissioners of La Plata county disagreed as to the amount of fees to which the sheriff was entitled, and this case, embracing such differences, was submitted to the county court upon an agreed statement of facts, accompanied by the proper affidavit of merit.

<p>1. Supersedeas.</p> <p>It seems that the only proper function and effect of a supersedeas is to suspend the enforcement of the judgment of the court below.</p> <p>2. Same — Contempt.</p> <p>In an action of unlawful detainer, before a justice of the peace, plaintiff had judgment. Defendant appealed to the county court, which dismissed the appeal, and he thereupon sued out a writ of error, which was made to operate as a supersedeas. Pending the determination of a motion to vacate the supersedeas, the' defendant in error took possession of the-property in controversy. Held, defendant in error was not guilty of disobeying the strict letter of the supersedeas, but that its conduct was reprehensible and deserving of punishment.</p>

<p>1. Appellate Practice.</p> <p>Notwithstanding it may appear to the court of review that a finding is against the weight of evidence, if there is testimony to support the decree, it will not be disturbed upon that ground.</p> <p>2. Specific Performance.</p> <p>Where payment of a certain sum is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to a specific performance, but he shows a valid reason for a failure of a strict compliance and ability and willingness fully to comply with the terms of the contract, he may be entitled to specific performance upon payment of the amount found to be due upon an accounting.</p>

<p> Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County. </p>

The board of county commissioners of Kiowa county, on the 26th day of September, 1891, filed their complaint in the district court of Kiowa county against the defendants in error, wherein they in substance allege : That the defendants in error, defendants below, are nonresidents of the state of Colorado; that they are the owners of 1,904 head of cattle ; that about the month of July they brought said cattle into Kiowa county, Colorado, and have since said time kept and…

<p>1. Water Rights Transferable.</p> <p>Although a water right may he appurtenant to land, it may be transferred either with or without the land.</p> <p>2. Same — Conveyance.</p> <p>Whether a deed to land conveys a water right depends upon the intention of the grantor, which is to be gathered from the express terms of the deed, or, when it is silent as to the water right, from the presumption that arises from the circumstances, and whether such right is oris not incident and necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land; so where a deed, after describing the land, contained the following : “ And also one half interest in a certain ditch,” describing it, it is manifest that the grantor intended to convey a like interest in the water right, and to reserve a one half interest in that right as well as in the ditch itself.</p> <p>3. Defense — Damages.</p> <p>The' fact that the plaintiff wrongfully prevented the defendant from taking water from a ditch in which he had a right does not constitute a defense to an action brought against the defendant for diverting all of the water of the stream by means of a new ditch, and for damages to the old ditch and other property caused by the operation of the new one.</p>

<p>1. Jurisdiction — County Court.</p> <p>By appealing from a judgment of a justice of the peace and going to trial upon the merits in the county court, the defendant waives the objection that the justice had no jurisdiction over his person.</p> <p>2. Presumption on Review.</p> <p>■Where it appears that several grounds were relied upon in support of a motion for a nonsuit, among which was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a recovery, it will be presumed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions containing the evidence, that it was sustained upon the latter ground.</p>

This is a proceeding instituted by the city of Durango to enforce the right to enlarge and jointly use a ditch belonging to The Junction Creek and North Durango Domestic and Irrigating Ditch Company.

JError to the Court of Appeals. It is alleged in the complaint: First: That on May 14th, 1885, and ever since, plaintiffs have been and now.are the owners, and were and are entitled to the possession… Held: used and occupied said premises willfully, wrongfully and against plaintiffs’ will and consent. Third :■ That the rental value of the premises possessed and detained by the defendants as aforesaid, has been worth at least six hundred dollars per year.

This is all action brought by the appellee to recover damages for the alleged unlawful taking of certain goods, wares and merchandise by the appellants. The nature of the case and the questions involved can be better understood by a brief statement of so much of the pleadings as present the material issue.

This action was brought by Stephen A. D. Stallings, as plaintiff, suing for himself and as assignee for others, for the purpose of recovering back certain moneys paid for the purchase of lots in the Denver University addition to the city of Denver, plaintiff alleging that he was induced to part with his money by reason of the fraudulent conduct of the defendants.

<p> Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

Proceedings in the Nature of Quo Warranto. In 1887, under the authority of amended section 14 of article 6 of the constitution, the general assembly increased by one the number of judges in the second judicial district of this state. The office was provisionally filled by the appointment thereto by the governor of Platt Rogers, who held the office until the next general election, in November, 1887, when W. S. Decker was elected as his successor.

Terror to the Court of Appeals. This is an action brought in the district court of Rio Grande county by the plaintiff in error against the treasurer and board of county commissioners of Rio Grande county to restrain the treasurer from proceeding to collect an alleged illegal tax assessed and levied against the Empire Canal, the property of plaintiff in error, and to obtain an order requiring the board to cancel the tax so imposed.

Original Proceeding. Petition for writ of prohibition. In the district court of Arapahoe county, Mary Smith instituted a suit for divorce against the relator, Hugh Smith. After filing the complaint she filed an application for temporary alimony and counsel fees. Due notice of the application was given to the defendant.

<p> Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

This case was brought into this court by appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals rendered in the case of Lee v. The Justice Mining Company, at the April term, 1892. See opinion, 2 Colo. App. 112. The record consists of the complaint and a demurrer thereto, which are fully set out in the statement of the case preceding that opinion.

JSrror to the District Court of Pitkin County. The Aspen Hardware Company instituted this suit in the court below for the purpose of recovering a stock of goods seized by the United States marshal under a writ of attachment issued out of the circuit court of the United States at the suit of Joseph A- Thatcher, plaintiff, against one A. B. Eads.

<p>Pact Case.</p> <p>Upon consideration of tlie evidence, the court finds that in the matters complained of the respondent acted in the utmost good faith and that the charge against him is not true.</p>

<p> .Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

This is an action brought by James McKeough, Jr., as the assignee of a certain promissory note against W. A. Burnett, James M. John and Delos A. Chappell, to recover a balance alleged to be ■ due thereon. Burnett and John made default. Chappell interposed several defenses: First, denial of the assignment of the note to McKeough, or that he was the owner of the note; second, payment; third, that John, and not McKeough, was the real party in interest.

<p> Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

<p> Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

<p> Error to the Court of Appeals. </p>

<p> Appeal from the District Court of Larimer County. </p> <p>Motion to strike from the record the bill of exceptions.</p>

This action was instituted by the appellant (plaintiff below) for the purpose of removing a cloud upon his title to an undivided three eighths interest in the “Wallace lode,” situate in Clear Creek county, Colorado, and to compel a conveyance thereof by the defendants to-the plaintiff!

Motion to dismiss writ of error. Defendant in error, William Snyder, commenced suit upon a promissory note executed byplaintiff in error and her husband, who were both made defendants in the action. Of the defendants, Mrs. Burton only was served with process, and she alone appeared in the action, her husband being deceased.

Court of Chaffee County. Action upon the bond of an administratrix, brought by an heir after reaching her majority. The amounts as stated in the opinion represent only the one quarter interest of plaintiff as such heir.

This is an action brought by George W. Sullivan against The Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have occurred by reason- of the negligence of appellant in constructing and keeping in repair its railroad track. At the time of the accident appellee was in the employ of The Union Pacific, Denver & Gulf Railway Company as brakeman.

Two causes of action are stated in the complaint. In the first it is alleged that on June 23,1883, plaintiff, Brown, was, and ever since that time has been, seized in fee and legally-entitled to the possession of certain mining property in Park county, Colorado. This allegation is followed by a description of the property.

This is a suit brought by Magdalena Bohm against John L. Jerome, executor of the last will of Mary Bohm, deceased, and othmgÉBÉeriforce a trust.

The plaintiff below, who is appellee here, instituted this action, as the widow and sole heir at law of Joseph N. Varney, deceased, to recover damages for the death of her husband, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants.

This action was commenced by appellee, John Jones, in the district court of Arapahoe county, for the purpose of recovering for moneys expended for medical attendance, nursing, medicines, etc., for bis wife and daughters, and also to recover for the loss of services of his wife and daughters, and loss of the society of his wife, occasioned by injuries received as hereinafter stated.

This is an action brought by appellee against the appellant upon six promissory notes alleged to have been executed by appellant, C. N. Swatzel and John McBride, and payable to the order of The American Savings Bank of Trinidad. The original complaint was entitled “ American Savings Bank v. James Wilcox,” and, inter alia, averred that the plaintiff was a corporation duly incorporated, etc. Defendant answered by a verified general denial.

<p> JError to the Court of Appeals. </p>

This action was to restrain 'the water commissioner of water district No. 3, in division No. 1, from interfering with the-flow of water into the headgate of plaintiff’s ditch.

This is an action in the nature of an action of ejectment, brought by appellee, James M. John, as plaintiff, to recover from appellants, James Wilcox and William Moad, a quarter section of laud situate in Las Animas county. There is no dispute as to the facts, which are as follows: One James Hunt was the patentee of the land in question, and each of the parties to this suit deraign title through said Hunt.

<p>1. Pleading — Evidence.</p> <p>Where it was alleged that the presence in the alleyway of the wire which caused the injury complained of was due to the negligence of the defendant in omitting to exercise due care in building its line, and culpable negligence in failing to keep it in good repair, evidence that notice of the defect had been communicated to the defendant in time to make repairs before the accident occurred tends directly to establish the issue of negligence.</p> <p>2. Practice — Special Findings.</p> <p>While it is provided by the code that “in any case in which'the jury render a general verdict, they may be required by the court to find specially upon any particular question of fact to be submitted to them in writing,” the giving or withholding of such questions is within the discretion of the court.</p> <p>S. Negligence — Evidence.</p> <p>Except in some relations springing out of contract, the mere happening of an accident is not evidence of negligence.</p> <p>4. Negligence, Degrees of.</p> <p>Degrees of negligence, such as slight and gross, are not recognized in this court.</p> <p>5. Cabe — Diligence.</p> <p>A person carrying on a business perilous to the public is bound to exercise that reasonable care and caution which would be exercised ' by reasonably prudent and cautious persons under the same or similar circumstances. The care should increase as the danger does, and when the business is attended with great peril to the public, the care to be exercised is commensurate with the increased danger.</p>

<p>1. Practice — Continuance.—A party lias tlio right to be present at the trial to assist his counsel, and his unavoidable absence may be cause for a continuance.</p> <p>2. Demurrers — Waiver.—All demurrers to a complaint, except for the ground that the same does not state a cause of action, or that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the person of the defendant, arc waived if, after demurrer overruled, the defendant answers and goes to trial.</p> <p>3. Negligence — Common Duty — Common Liability. — Where the owner of a lot and the city are under common obligation to keep safe a sidewalk in front of the premises, a party injured in consequence of their failure to perform their common duty may have his action against them jointly or severally.</p>

The original complaint alleged the formation of a partnership by the plaintiff McCain and the defendant Brewer on the first day of January, 1887, the purpose of which was the manufacture and sale of brick in the city of Denver, and that such firm, as Brewer & McCain, carried on said business for about two years.

This action was brought by the appellee in the district court to recover from the appellant damages alleged to have been sustained by him through its negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of three thousand dollars, upon which the court entered judgment. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

The opinion of the court is in response to the following communication from the governor: “ Whereas : The tenth general assembly passed an act providing for the funding of certain indebtedness of the state, which act was approved April 8th, 1895, and appears in the session laws of the'state of Colorado for 1895, on pages 178-182 of said session laws.

The opinion of the court is in response to the following communication from the governor: “To the Honorable, the Supreme Court of Colorado : “ Whereas, the tenth general assembly passed a law entitled, ‘An Act to Create Additional Bonded Indebtedness,’ which act was approved April 8th, 1895, and is found on page 178 of the session laws of the state of Colorado for the year 1895, reference to said act being hereby made for a more particular statement thereof, and, “ Whereas,…

This is an action for the recovery of the possession of specific personal property. The complaint bases the plaintiff’s right of possession upon the existence of certain facts, ■which are with particularity set out in the complaint, and which are claimed to constitute ownership in the plaintiff. The first defense of the answer is a general denial, and the second defense is a justification under an attachment writ.

Action to remove cloud from title, commenced- by appellee, George T. Hull, who alleges that on November 10, 1890, he was owner and in possession of lots “ B ” and “ C,” in resubdivision to lots 1, 2 and 8, in block 2, Highland Park; that at the date mentioned the plaintiff entered into the following agreement with one C. William Leimbach: “ This agreement, made Nov. 10th, 1890, between George T. Hull and C. Wm.

JSrror to the District Court of Conejos County. An information was filed in the district court of Conejos county charging the plaintiff in error, Abe Taylor, and William Thompson, with the murder of Charles Emerson,— Taylor as principal and Thompson as accessory.

This is an action brought by Joseph R. Rees against The Colorado Mortgage & Investment Company to recover for injuries alleged to have been suffered through its negligence. The company is, and was at the time of the injuries, the owner of, and in full control of, the Barclay block, an office building situate on the corner of Larimer and Eighteenth streets, in the city of Denver, and an. elevator operated therein for the use of its tenants and .their patrons.

<p>1. Ordinances — Licenses.</p> <p>An ordinance granting to owners of abutting lots tbe right to occnpy a designated portion of the sidewalk with a booth or stand for the sale of merchandise is but a license, which may be revoked at any time.</p> <p>2. Streets, City's Control oe.</p> <p>So long as the city continues to recognize its highways as such, it cannot irrevocably deprive itself of its police power of protecting and guarding them against unlawful obstructions.</p> <p>3. Ordinances.</p> <p>Whether or not. a municipal ordinance is discriminating must be determined by the coui’t as a question of law from its own provisions, and not from the manner of its enforcement.</p> <p>4. Limitations.</p> <p>As respects public rights upon streets and highways, municipal corporations are not within ordinary statutes of limitations.</p> <p>5. Streets, Control of — Public Nuisance.</p> <p>It seems that a stand or booth erected in one of the highways of a city . for the sale of merchandise is a public nuisance, which even the city could not maintain without legislative authority.</p>

<p>1. Wbit of Ebbob.</p> <p>A writ of error does not lie to an interlocutory order.</p> <p>2. Same — Obdebs in Vacation.</p> <p>An order of the judge, in vacation, purporting to make permanent a temporary injunction, is not such a final disposition of the case as to be reviewable upon a writ of error thereto.</p>

The complaint stated an express contract between the parties, whereby the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs the sum of $2,500 for procuring a purchaser to buy the defendant’s property at the agreed price of $100,000. At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony, leave was asked by them, and granted by the court, to amend the complaint by inserting a second cause of action based upon a quantummeruit for the same services.

At the general election in 1894, plaintiff in error, Nathaniel Young, and defendant in error, John H. Simpson, were opposing candidates for the office of county commissioner of Logan county. The canvassing board of the county found that plaintiff in error had received 477 votes for this office, and defendant in error, Simpson, 476, and declared the former duly elected by a majority of one vote.

The Belmont Mining and Milling Company brought an action against Costigan and his wife as the payees of certain promissory notes, and against Hamilton as tbe trustee named in a deed of trust given to secure said notes and covering the Belmont mine, the object of which, among other things, was to obtain a decree of court canceling said notes and deed of trust, which purported, as it was alleged, to have been executed by the plaintiff company, but which, it was claimed, were…

On October 22, 1888, the plaintiff brought its action for the purpose of rescinding a contract of sale of the Belmont mine made to the plaintiff by the defendants, the cause of the action being that the defendants had been guilty of deceit, upon which the plaintiff to its injury relied in making the purchase.

<p> Appeal from the Court of Appeals. </p>

The defendant in error, as administratrix of the estate of Adam G. Herzinger, deceased, instituted this action to recover the sum of $8,750, alleged to have accrued to her intestate during his lifetime, as dividends declared by said plaintiff in error upon 125,000 shares of its capital stock belonging to him, from the month of September, 1889, to the month of March, 1890, inclusive.

On the 24th day of December, 1890, the appellees commenced an action in the district court of Fremont county against The Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company and .several others, to quiet title to a certain tract of land, predicating their right to such relief upon the following facts, to wit: That in the year 1883 John H. Terry, the owner of said .tract of land, conveyed the same to The Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company for the purpose of building and operating its line…

This suit was instituted in the district court by John W. Helbig against Hiram G. Wolff. There are three separate and distinct causes of action set forth in the complaint, and of these the first consists of three separate items, for which damages are claimed. As to two of these items the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit at the trial, leaving only what is termed the “ Calhoun deal ” remaining in the first cause of action.

Error: to the District Court of Pueblo County. Suit was commenced by defendant in error as plaintiff in the district court on the 30th day of September, 1889. On that day a complaint was filed, a summons and writ of attachment issued. The summons and writ of attachment were both served two da3'S later.

Appellees Green and. Fisher, partners as The Chicago Lumber Co., and Ackroyd and Brindle, as E. Ackro}M & Co., commenced their several actions in the district court of Arapahoe county against Woodbuiy and Page, partners as Wood-bury & Co., principal contractors, and against the appellant, Jane T. Spangler, as owner, to recover judgments against Woodbury & Co., which they sought to have established under the mechanic’s lien act as liens upon Mrs. Spangler’s property for…

At the November term of the district court of Weld county two separate informations were duly filed against the plaintiff in error, charging him with the larceny of certain neat cattle, as follows (omitting the formal part) : “No. 570 “The People of the State of Colorado v. Robert Chesnut. } Information. “That Robert Chesnut, late of the county of Weld and state of Colorado, on or about the first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and…

Original Proceeding in this Court. The relator, Ward Darley, is a citizen of Colorado, and a resident of Boulder county, in the eighth judicial district of this state. The two respondents, Byron L. Carr and John H. Wells, together with Alpheus Wright, constitute the standing committee of said judicial district appointed by this court, under the statute, to examine applicants for admission to the bar.

<p> Error to the County Court of Arapahoe County. </p>

This was an action brought by the defendant in error to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the plaintiff in error.