Camelin v. Smith

Decided September 15, 1912

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1912-09-15

<p>1. Bill of Exceptions — Who May Authenticate — A. bill of 'exceptions signed by the successor in office of the judge presiding at the trial, stricken from the record.</p> <p>2. New Trial — Who May Allow — By the weight of authority the successor in office of the judge before whom a cause was tried, may decide a. motion for a new trial, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary. ' '</p>

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1967

5 state decisions

Relies on People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnell · Fechheimer v. Trounstiene · Water Supply & Storage Co. v. Tenney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Garrigues

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶21. An examination of the purported bill of exceptions, shows that it was signed by the succeeding- judge, and not by the trial judge. The motion to strike it from the files will therefore be sustained. — Feckheimer v. Trounstien, 12 Colo. 282; Empire L. & C. Co. v. Engley, 14 Colo. 289; Water Supply Co. v. Tenney, 21 Colo. 284.

¶32. The remaining question, is whether the succeeding judge should, as a matter of right, have sustained the motion for a new trial. By the weight of modern authority, the *575succeeding judge, presiding over the same court, may decide a motion for a new trial in the absence of a statute to the contrary. — People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnell, 155 Ill. 192.

¶4Affirmed.

Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Musser concur.