appeal or writ error in Colorado

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People [ex rel.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1901Leon ard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Co. v.District Court, 23 Colo. 441 ; People v. District Court, 21 Colo. 251 ; People v. District Court; 11 Colo. 574 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 .

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1901Leon ard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Co. v.District Court, 23 Colo. 441 ; People v. District Court, 21 Colo. 251 ; People v. District Court; 11 Colo. 574 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 .

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1901Leon ard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Co. v.District Court, 23 Colo. 441 ; People v. District Court, 21 Colo. 251 ; People v. District Court; 11 Colo. 574 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 .

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People [ex rel.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1964Leonard v. Bartels, 4 Colo. 95 ; Tom Boy Gold Mines Co. v. District Court of Arapahoe Co., 23 Colo. 441 , 48 Pac. 537 ; People v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 21 Colo. 251 , 40 Pac. 460 ; People v. District Court of Larimer Co., 11 Colo. 574 , 19 Pac. 541 ; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302 , 29 Pac. 516 . * * * .” In Prinster v. District Court 137 Colo. 393 , 325 P.2d 938 , this court quoted with approval the following language found in 42 Am.

1950In Erwin v. Lowry, 7 Howard 172 , decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1849, and consistently followed by the federal courts thereafter, it is said: “Five years is the time allowed for prosecuting appeals to and writs of error out of this court, and in many cases decrees and judgments are executed before any step is taken to bring the case here; yet in no instance within our knowledge has an appeal or writ of error been dismissed on the assumption that a release of errors was implied from the fact that money or property has changed hands by force of the judgment or decree.

1950If the judgment is reversed, it is the duty of the inferior court, on the cause being remanded, to restore the parties to their rights.” (Italics ours) The following are some of the numerous decisions in jurisdictions other than ours which hold that obedience to a mandate of court is not voluntary in the sense that it constitutes a waiver of error or estoppel, thereby making the questions arising in the trial court moot so as to prevent a review thereof: Beronio v. Pension Commission of City of Hoboken, 130 N.J.L. 620 , 33 A. (2d) 855; In the Matter of Creager, 323 Ill.

1950If the judgment is reversed, it is the duty of the inferior court, on the cause being remanded, to restore the parties to their rights.” (Italics ours) The following are some of the numerous decisions in jurisdictions other than ours which hold that obedience to a mandate of court is not voluntary in the sense that it constitutes a waiver of error or estoppel, thereby making the questions arising in the trial court moot so as to prevent a review thereof: Beronio v. Pension Commission of City of Hoboken, 130 N.J.L. 620 , 33 A. (2d) 855; In the Matter of Creager, 323 Ill.

1919J. 1182, sec. 1254, is that “the first day is to be excluded and the last day included.” In 38 Cyc. 321, it is said: “It has been stated generally that when any matter of practice or procedure is required by statute or order of court to be done within a certain number of days, the first day is excluded.” And on page 326 of the same work, appears the following text: “It is a general rule, not only in jurisdictions where the computation of time is regulated by statute, but in other jurisdiction where it ■ is not so regulated, that, in computing the time given or allowed by statute or order of co

1909Connett v. City of Chicago, 114 Ill. 233 , held that a city attorney whose duty it is to look after and protect the interests of the city in all legal controversies has the power on behalf of the city to pray for an appeal from a judgment against the city and prepare the necessary steps for taking the same; but the court recognized the general rule that the retainer of an attorney by a private party to prosecute or defend in a trial court does not authorize him to prosecute an appeal or writ of error in the same case; adding that a city attorney occupies a different position, the géneral scope

1904But where, as in the case at bar, to a correct determination of such motion there is required practically as extensive an examination of the record as would be made upon a final hearing, and incidentally the substantial rights of the parties, or some of them, may be thereby settled, the better practice is to postpone decision upon the application to dismiss until final hearing on the merits. —Monash v. Rhodes, 26 Colo. 321 .

1902In People v. The District Court, 29 Colo., 83 ( 66 Pac., 1068 ), in somewhat different phraseology, the same thought is thus expressed: “The granting of the writ of prohibition rests in the sound discretion of the court.

1895Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14 ; Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578 ; Guion v. Liverpool, L. & G.

1895Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14 ; Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U. S. 578 ; Guion v. Liverpool, L. & G.

1864Practice Act, Stat. Colorado, 1st Sess. 285; Woodside et al. v. Woodside et al., 21 Ill. 207 ; Cunningham v. Loomis et al., 17 Ill. 555 ; Young v. Grundy 6, Cranch, 51.

1864Practice Act, Stat. Colorado, 1st Sess. 285; Woodside et al. v. Woodside et al., 21 Ill. 207 ; Cunningham v. Loomis et al., 17 Ill. 555 ; Young v. Grundy 6, Cranch, 51.