419 P.2d 310 | Colo. | 1966
Opinion by
The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed their Fourth Amended Complaint in which eleven separate claims were asserted against some or all of the defendants named in the action.
Kreps, Stroup, and Patio Homes, Inc., are involved in the litigation as the vendors of the properties owned by the plaintiffs, and as developers of the area in which
The issues framed by the pleadings were tried before the court beginning April 8, 1964, and at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence motions were made by all the defendants to dismiss the action because of a failure of the plaintiffs to produce evidence entitling them to the relief prayed for, or to any other relief.
In sustaining these motions to dismiss, the trial court entered the following order and findings:
“The motions to dismiss by the respective parties herein are granted.
“THE COURT FINDS:
“1. That no ruling can be made as to the validity of
“2. There never was placed before the Court the published notice concerning the adoption of the Zoning Resolution of August 7, 1961, although there was testimony that such publication was made. The Court, therefore, is unable to rule as to the adequacy of such notice.
“3. There was insufficient testimony to establish a prima facie case in connection with the allegation that there was any agreement as to zoning on Lot 17, Block 1, Holly Hills Subdivision.
“4. Testimony concerning alleged failure to provide lateral support or cause of subsidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
“5. The map, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit O, introduced into evidence was identified at all times as nothing more than a work-sheet, and never was indicated to be an official document, or a part of the Zoning Resolution as adopted.
“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the defendant Abbie L. Stroup was deceased prior to the initiation of the subject law suit; that there was no evidence to establish grounds for the defendant Harry B. Stroup; or the defendants David Nicholl, Eugene Sternberg, Arnold Kirkegaard, Charles MacLean, and Howard Abbott, as members of the Board of Adjustment; or Jim Norton, Building Inspector, being named as parties in this action; that there is no basis for naming of any and all other unknown persons who may be interested in any way in the subject matter of this action. There was no motion made nor leave granted for service of summons by publication. The Court had nothing before it on which it might issue an injunction or on which it might assess damages. Further, that no evidence was adduced that any relief might or could be granted against the defendant Columbia Savings and Loan Association.
We have carefully read the entire record and conclude therefrom that the trial court committed no error in reaching the conclusions specifically mentioned in the foregoing quotation. No new or unusual legal principle is involved in this controversy. The sole question is whether the conclusions of the trial court are borne out by the record, and we hold they are. No good purpose would be served by discussing the contents of that record in greater detail.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Sutton and Mr. Justice Frantz concur.