Case Title: White, Green & Addison Assoc. v. Monarch O. & U. Corp.

Citation: 347 P.2d 135

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1959-11-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
347 P.2d 135 (1959) WHITE, GREEN & ADDISON ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. MONARCH OIL & URANIUM CORPORATION, Defendant in Error. No. 18513. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. November 30, 1959. Rice & Rice, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Strang & McCarthy, Montrose, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court, where plaintiff in error was defendant and defendant in error was plaintiff. In its complaint plaintiff alleged that it was the owner of five mining claims in San Miguel county, Colorado; that said claims had been leased to defendant on July 19, 1955, and that defendant had failed to comply with various terms and conditions of said lease, by reason of which plaintiff prayed for judgment restoring to it possession *136 of said property, and for a decree declaring said lease forfeited. Following the filing of an answer and counterclaim by defendant a hearing was had upon the application of plaintiff for a temporary injunction. At this hearing representatives of the plaintiff and defendant corporations were present, as well as counsel for each of the parties. At the conclusion of said hearing, and with full knowledge of counsel for plaintiff and defendant, the case was set for trial on the merits on the 13th day of August, 1957. On that date the trial court permitted counsel for defendant to withdraw his appearance after which the court proceeded to trial, heard the evidence offered by plaintiff, and entered judgment as prayed for in the complaint. Pertinent facts concerning the events of August 13 appear in the court findings hereinafter quoted. September 1, 1957, defendant, appearing by new counsel, filed its motion to vacate the judgment upon the following grounds: September 19, 1957, defendant filed its motion for a new trial and as grounds for said motion alleged: The above motions were filed within the time ordered by the court. At the conclusion of the hearing thereon the trial court entered an order from which we quote the following: "The main proposition advanced by counsel for Defendant goes to the refusal of the Court to grant a continuance at the time the case was tried, and permitting counsel of record to withdraw his appearance, and refusing to allow the Defendant a continuance to secure other counsel even though an employee of the Defendant was present and made such request. *137 "Mr. Luedde called the Court on the telephone and stated in substance that the president of the defendant corporation was advised as to the trial date and requirements in telephone conversation of company matters during last July. Advice was given to proper company personnel on or about August 1st that the case was set for trial August 13th, that attorney's fees were to be paid and conferences re defenses had in time to permit proper preparation of case. "At this point the Court permitted Mr. Luedde to withdraw. "It was with this conclusion in mind that the Court refused to continue the case, and the Court is still of the opinion that there was no equity in the Defendant's request for continuance of the case. To permit a Defendant to ignore its own counsel, to ignore the *138 Court, and to come in when the other side is prepared for trial with witnesses and seek continuance does not appeal to the Court. In Connell v. Continental Casualty Company, 87 Colo. 573, 290 P. 274, 275, this court used the following pertinent language: In Mountain v. Stewart, 112 Colo. 302, 149 P.2d 176, the above quoted rule was restated and the opinion contained the following: "We have consistently followed and applied the rule in this jurisdiction * * *." In Riss v. Air Rental, Inc., 136 Colo. 216, 315 P.2d 820, this court approved the following statement taken from the opinion in Barra v. People, 18 Colo.App. 16, 69 P. 1074, 1075: In the instant case there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. On the contrary, the record before us is heavily weighted in support of the action of the court in refusing to vacate the judgment. In this connection see County Court of Phillips County v. People ex rel., 55 Colo. 258, 133 P. 752; Johnson v. George, 119 Colo. 594, 206 P.2d 345; Davis v. Klaes, 140 Colo. ----, 346 P.2d 1018. The judgment is affirmed.