Catlin v. Moynihan

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 7, 1924

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1924-07-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1928

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We said, in Auto Co. v. Petter , 72 Colo. 570 , 212 Pac. 823 , that `a request by each party for a directed verdict is equivalent to a stipulation that the facts may be found by the court. The court's finding, thereupon made, is conclusive if there is evidence to support it.' There was some conflict in the testimony, but there was abundant evidence to justify the finding in favor of plaintiff below.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Parker v. Plympton

Relies on Cascade Auto Co. v. Petter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-07-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Whitford

¶1 delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2 A verdict for $50 was directed by the court against the plaintiff in error as garnishee. After the evidence was all in and both plaintiff and defendant had rested, each side requested the court to direct a verdict in his favor. We said, in Auto Co. v. Petter, 72 Colo. 570, 212 Pac. 823, that “a request by each party for a directed verdict is equivalent to a stipulation that the facts may be found by the court. The court’s finding, thereupon made, is conclusive if there is evidence to support it.” There was some conflict in the testimony, but there was abundant evidence to justify the. finding in favor of plaintiff below.

¶3 *165 We find no reversible error in the record. Supersedeas denied, judgment affirmed.

¶4 Mr. Justice Allen, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice Teller, and Mr. Justice Denison concur.