TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bennett v. Accounts, Inc.

Charles E. Bennett v. Accounts, Inc.

Bennett v. Accounts, Inc., 395 P.2d 225 (Colo. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Colorado · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 14, 1964
Docket
No. 20812
Judges
Frantz
Citations
395 P.2d 225155 Colo. 4611964 Colo. LEXIS 360

Opinion — Frantz

Mr. Justice Frantz delivered the opinion of the Court.

Accounts, Inc., sued Mr. Bennett on an assigned account for labor and materials furnished in repairing the transmissions of two Cadillac automobiles. Mr. Bennett counterclaimed for damages for alleged defective work. After trial, the lower court entered judgment in favor of Accounts, Inc., on its claim and dismissed the counterclaim.

Error in one respect only is urged as ground for reversal. Mr. Bennett asserts “that the court erred in granting a judgment to the plaintiff and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim on the theory that the defendant’s evidence does not overcome the prima facie case.”

Such asserted error limits the scope of our inquiry. We need only ascertain whether evidence was presented to the trial court sufficient to warrant the entry of the judgment. As the trier of the facts, it was the trial court’s sole function to determine in whose favor the preponderating credible evidence lay.

Merkowitz v. Mahoney, 121 Colo. 38 , 215 P.2d 317 .

As a court of review, we are charged with the duty of considering that testimony which is most favorable to the sustention of the judgment. If, in the performance of this duty, it appears to us that the record *463 contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment, we are obliged to affirm.

Bohe v. Scott, 83 Colo. 374 , 265 Pac. 694 . In whose favor the evidence preponderates is not ours to determine, so long as the judgment is not so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate prejudice or gross error.

Brand v. Merritt, 15 Colo. 286 , 25 Pac. 175 .

In the application of these rules we would not be justified in upsetting the dispositions which the trial court made of claim and counterclaim. From our reading of the record we cannot say that the trial court adjudged improperly.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 11971: 11972: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Branco Eastern Company v. Leffler482 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1971)
  2. Thornton v. City of Colorado Springs478 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1970)
  3. Hayes v. State498 P.2d 1119 (Colo. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Hayes v. State498 P.2d 1119 (Colo. 1972)
  2. Branco Eastern Company v. Leffler482 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1971)
  3. Thornton v. City of Colorado Springs478 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Merkowitz v. Mahoney, 215 P.2d 317 (Colo. 1949) 13
Bohe v. Scott, 265 P. 694 (Colo. 1928) 7
Brand v. Merritt, 15 Colo. 286 (1890) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list