George W. Allen

This case involves a 1925 petition for contempt against a husband for failing to pay alimony ordered in a 1910 divorce decree, which required $25 monthly for the support of the wife and minor child. The trial court found the husband in contempt and awarded $1,875 for the child's benefit based on $12.50 per month over 12.5 years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the wife's laches after more than 15 years barred enforcement through contempt proceedings, as any recovery would reimburse the wife who had supported the child, and there was insufficient cause for the delay. The court also dismissed the related writ of ne exeat due to lack of evidence.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure where the plaintiff, after purchasing the property at a sheriff's sale for the amount of the judgment, sought appointment of a receiver to take possession during the redemption period and apply rents toward unpaid taxes. The trial court denied the request, and the plaintiff appealed, seeking a supersedeas to review that order. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a mortgagor retains the right to possession until redemption expires and that appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly. It found no abuse of discretion because the mortgagor testified to plans to cultivate the land and redeem it, unlike cases where the mortgagor showed no intent or ability to redeem. The application for supersedeas was denied and the judgment affirmed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for feloniously and knowingly possessing a still intended for manufacturing intoxicating liquor under a 1925 Colorado statute. The defendant challenged the admission of evidence showing his possession of mash and intoxicating liquor, arguing it was irrelevant since the statute punishes mere possession regardless of intent. The court held that such evidence was admissible to demonstrate the intent to use the still for liquor manufacture, which helps establish both the fact of possession and that the device was indeed a still. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

criminal law

In Weaver v. Lynch, the plaintiff secured a judgment by confession on a promissory note that contained a clause waiving the defendant's right to claim property exemptions from execution under Colorado law. The trial court later vacated its prior finding regarding the waiver and enjoined seizure of exempt property, and the plaintiff sought review of that order. The sole issue was whether a waiver of exemption rights included in an executory contract such as a promissory note is enforceable. The court held the waiver invalid as against public policy, reasoning that exemption laws exist to protect debtors and their families, and that advance waivers in such contracts would undermine those protections by allowing creditors to obtain them when debtors are financially vulnerable; it therefore affirmed the trial court's order permitting the exemption.

propertyprocedure

The case involved three consolidated appeals from convictions under a Denver municipal ordinance that prohibited performing plumbing work without first obtaining a certificate of competency from the city's examining board and complying with state law. The defendants, who were apprentices employed by licensed plumbers, argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to them. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the ordinance does not apply to apprentices but that the evidence supported findings that the defendants had worked independently as journeymen plumbers without licenses, and that employers' failure to supervise did not excuse the violations.

business & regulatorycriminal lawlabor & employment

This case involves a stockholder petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the president and secretary of a corporation to permit inspection of the company's books, accounts, and papers. The trial court overruled the respondents' demurrers to the amended alternative writ, issued a peremptory writ, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that the writ was sufficient under the applicable statute, which grants any stockholder the right to inspect all corporate books at reasonable times, that allegations regarding the inadequacy of other remedies were unnecessary because mandamus was the only adequate remedy here, and that the writ properly included necessary allegations and negated the statutory exceptions for railroad and telegraph companies.

business & regulatoryprocedure