TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willoughby v. George

Willoughby v. George, 4 Colo. 22 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Colorado · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1877
Judges
Elbebt
Citations
4 Colo. 22
Headnotes
Under the Code (§ 335) the only method by which a judgment of the district court may be reviewed in this court is by appeal.
Summary
Error to District Court of Jefferson County. Motion to quash writ of error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Elbebt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Elbebt, J.

The judgment in this case was rendered after the Code went into effect.

A writ of error is a new suit. Filley v. Cody, 3 Col. 221 , and cases cited.

The case does not therefore come within the saving clause of section 447 of the Code.

Section 335 of the Code provides “ a judgment or order in a civil action, except when expressly made final, may be reviewed by appeal as prescribed by this act and not otherwise.”

The phrase, “ except when expressly made finalf is *23 peculiar and lias given rise to doubts, as to whether the section ought not to be held to apply to interlocutory judgments and orders only. By reference, however, to section 333 of the California. Code, of which our Code is largely a transcript, we find substantially, and almost in language the same provisioh, except that the phrase there reads, ‘ ‘ except when'expressly made final by this Code.” Harston’s Prac., § 936.

As the phrase is still susceptible of the same construction as if the omitted words had been adopted, we do not feel authorized to say that their omission was with the design of changing or limiting the force or effect of the section as it existed in the Code from which it was adopted. The exception then is of judgments and orders which under the law are not reviewable by any mode.

In this view the provision is plain and positive, and under it, in the case of judgments rendered after the Code went into effect, the remedy is by appeal and not otherwise. Haight v. Gray, 8 Cal. 300 .

If it is possible for a case to occur not falling within the cases prescribed in the act as appealable, in such a case a different view might be taken.

The writ of error does not lie. The Constitution saves' the writ to the county court only. _

The motion to quash is sustained.

Motion sustained.

How later courts describe this case

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

1891: 11893: 11911: 11953: 118912026peak 1891 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Richmond16 Colo. 274 (1891)
  2. Harvey v. Travelers Ins.18 Colo. 354 (1893)
  3. Ex parte France95 N.E. 515 (Ind. 1911) · Concurrence
  4. Bealmear v. Beeson263 S.W.2d 472 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953)

Most recent

  1. Bealmear v. Beeson263 S.W.2d 472 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953)
  2. Ex parte France95 N.E. 515 (Ind. 1911) · Concurrence
  3. Harvey v. Travelers Ins.18 Colo. 354 (1893)
  4. People v. Richmond16 Colo. 274 (1891)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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