No. 7712 | Colo. | Sep 15, 1912
delivered the opinion of the court:
1. An examination of the purported bill of exceptions, shows that it was signed by the succeeding- judge, and not by the trial judge. The motion to strike it from the files will therefore be sustained. — Feckheimer v. Trounstien, 12 Colo. 282" court="Colo." date_filed="1888-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/fechheimer-v-trounstiene-6561721?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6561721">12 Colo. 282; Empire L. & C. Co. v. Engley, 14 Colo. 289" court="Colo." date_filed="1890-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/empire-land--canal-co-v-engley-6561917?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6561917">14 Colo. 289; Water Supply Co. v. Tenney, 21 Colo. 284" court="Colo." date_filed="1895-04-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/water-supply--storage-co-v-tenney-6562638?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6562638">21 Colo. 284.
2. The remaining question, is whether the succeeding judge should, as a matter of right, have sustained the motion for a new trial. By the weight of modern authority, the
Affirmed.