Smookler v. Nicoll Bros. Oil, Inc.

Mr. Chief Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the court. These parties appear heret in the same order as in the trial court and are hereinafter referred to as there. Plaintiff sued defendant in justice court for $300 due, as is said, on a certain lease. A trial there resulted in a judgment for defendant for costs. Plaintiff appealed to the county court where the cause was tried de novo, to the court without a jury, with the same result. To review the latter judgment plaintiff prosecutes this writ and *588 assigns two errors, i. e., “1. That judgment is contrary to the law. 2. That judgment is contrary to the evidence.” These assignments are no compliance with our Eule No. 32 and present nothing for review. Wilson v. Giem, 90 Colo. 27, 5 P. (2d) 880; Ohio C. I. Co. v. Colorado Portland Cement Co., 97 Colo. 541, 51 P. (2d) 591; Buchanan v. Burgess, 99 Colo. 307, 62 P. (2d) 465. We thus briefly dispose of the cause with no reluctance since our examination of the record discloses that on no theory could a contrary conclusion be reached. The sole question at issue was, Had there been a surrender of the lease and an acceptance, thereof? Counsel for plaintiff say in their brief, and we agree, that “the evidence * * * is uncontroverted.” That evidence supports the judgment which is accordingly affirmed. Mr. Justice Hilliard and Mr. Justice Bakke concur.