[DOWNLOAD] "Estate of Lowell v. Arnett" by Colorado Supreme Court ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Estate of Lowell v. Arnett
- Author : Colorado Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 08, 1939
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
Lyle Maley was employed by the above named respondent employer on May 18, 1942 at an average weekly wage of $33.00. Said employer conducted a sand pit and also owned a farm. Decedent had been working for this employer since January, 1941. Decedent worked at the sand pit most of this time but on one occasion prior to May 18, 1942 the employer sent decedent to a farm which he owned for the purpose of removing a tractor to another farm owned by said employer. Decedent worked at the sand pit through May 14, 1942 and began working on a farm owned by said employer on May 15, 1942. It appears from the testimony that no others were working on this farm and that the employer had difficulty in obtaining help. The employer admits that the work on this farm was to be temporary and admits that the employment at the sand pit had not necessarily ceased.
A PROCEEDING in the nature of quo warranto, by the people on relation of a qualified private citizen (the district attorney having declined so to proceed), challenging the right of defendant in error functioning therein, to hold the office of election commissioner of the City and County of Denver. The district court held adversely to the challenge and gave judgment of dismissal.
THIS is a damage suit arising out of an automobile accident, the principal question in which involves the application of our guest statute, being section 371, chapter 16, 35 C.S.A. Defendant in error, plaintiff below, to whom we hereinafter refer as Simpson, recovered a judgment of $15,000 and costs against plaintiff in error Edelen, who seeks reversal on a writ of error. The judgment is based upon the verdict of a jury which found in Simpsons favor in the amount indicated.
The Commission having reviewed the entire file and particularly claimants petition with medical reports attached, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises, finds: