Case Name: Hicks v. Pack Lock Bolt Co., et al.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1922-12-04
Citations: 72 Colo. 480
Docket Number: No. 10,523
Parties: Hicks v. Pack Lock Bolt Co., et al.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Allen concur.
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 480–482

Head Matter:
No. 10,523.
Hicks v. Pack Lock Bolt Co., et al.
Decided December 4, 1922.
Rehearing denied January 8, 1923.
Action for accounting. Judgment for plaintiffs.
Affirmed.
On Application for Supersedeas.
1. Pleading — Complaint for Accounting. Allegations of the complaint in an action for accounting reviewed, and demurrer thereto held properly overruled.
2. Appeal and Error — Fact Findings. Findings of fact by the trial court based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on review.
3. New Trial — Assignments of Error. Errors assigned which were not presented in the motion for a new trial, and questions not mentioned in the assignments of error, cannot be considered on review.
Error to the District Court of Pueblo County, Hon. James A. Park, Judge.
Mr. R. A. CROSSMAN, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Rose & Kelly, for defendants in error.
Department One.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Teller
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendants in error were plaintiffs in a suit against the plaintiffs in error for an accounting.' A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, the defendant answered at length, and the plaintiffs replied. The cause was tried to the court without a jury and judgment entered for the plaintiffs. Plaintiff in error has assigned a number of errors, only one of which may, under the rules, be considered. None of the errors assigned on this record were presented on the motion for a new trial. The only alleged error to be considered is that in the overruling of the demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint is in usual form, alleging the entrusting of moneys to the defendant, the misappropriation of some of them, and failure to account for other items. It states a cause of action for an accounting. On the motion for a new trial it was urged: First, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment, and that the judgment is against the law. Second, that there was error in law occurring at the trial. Neither of these grounds for reversal is mentioned in the assignment of errors.
There was a mass of testimony before the court on the question at issue, and were there error properly assigned we would not be at liberty to disturb the court's findings, based upon conflicting evidence. What the errors of law were on the trial is not stated.
The supersedeas is accordingly denied, and the judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Allen concur.