Case Name: Schildt v. The Cimarron & Uncompahgre Valley Canal and Reservoir Company
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1913-04
Citations: 24 Colo. App. 259
Docket Number: No. 3886
Parties: Schildt v. The Cimarron & Uncompahgre Valley Canal and Reservoir Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
[No. 3886.]
Schildt v. The Cimarron & Uncompahgre Valley Canal and Reservoir Company.
The evidence being insufficient' to support a judgment for plaintiff, who was the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the district court on a directed verdict affirmed.
Error to Montrose District Court. Hon. Sprigg Shackelford, Judge.
Mr. Hugo Selig, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Bell, Catlin & Blake, Mr. Philip W. Mothersill, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff in error brought his action in the district court to recover for damages alleged to have been occasioned to his land by water escaping through breaks in the ditch or canal of the defendant corporation. At the conclusion of his evidence, counsel for the ditch company moved the court for a directed verdict, on the grounds (a) that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (b) the insufficiency, of the evidence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. The motion was granted and a verdict returned, under the direction of the court, in favor of defendant. The abstract does not disclose clearly whether the trial judge acted on the de murrer to the complaint, or to the evidence, or both. At the opening of the trial, with much reluctance, the trial judge overruled defendant's demurrer to the complaint. Whether the complaint states a cause of action or not is, in our judgment, a close question, but a careful reading of the testimony convinces us that it is insufficient to support a judgment in favor of plaintiff. We think no good purpose can be served by our analyzing and pointing out the deficiencies in the evidence. No question of great public interest is involved, and, as we view it, the record presents no nice questions of law calling for a written opinion in this case. We think it is sufficient for all purposes to say that in the main we agree with the position taken by counsel for defendant in error in their brief on file in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Bell, Judge, not participating.