Case Name: Carnahan v. Connolly
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1902-01
Citations: 17 Colo. App. 98
Docket Number: No. 1933
Parties: Carnahan v. Connolly.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 98–104

Head Matter:
[No. 1933.]
Carnahan v. Connolly.
1. Appellate Practice — Bills of Exception.
Where an action was dismissed under a rule of court for want of prosecution, and the bill of exceptions contains neither the rule nor the facts upon which the court acted in ordering the dismissal, an assignment of error based upon the order of dismissal will not be considered.
2. Practice — Dismissal—Notice—Waiver—Appearance.
Where the court of its own motion called a case as within a rule for dismissal for want of prosecution, and plaintiff’s counsel had case set for hearing on question as to whether or not it should be dismissed, and voluntarily appeared at such hearing and without objection went into the trial of the question, he waived objection that no notice was served upon him.
3. Appellate Practice — Judgments—Presumption of Regularity. On appeal a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and parties, and power to enter the judgment in question, is presumed to be regular in every respect unless the contrary appears from the record.
4. Practice — Adverse Suits — Dismissal.
The dismissal of an adverse suit without a verdict is not obnoxious to section 2326, U. S. Rev. Stats., which provides that, if title is not established in either party, the jury shall so find.
5. Appellate Practice — Bills of Execption — Rules of Court — Motion for New Trial.
Where a case was dismissed under a certain rule of court, the court rule cannot be brought before the appellate court for review by including a copy thereof in a motion for new trial and incorporating the motion in the bill of exceptions. The statement in the. motion that it contains a copy of the rule is no evidence of the existence or contents of the rule.
6. Appellate Practice — Rules of Trial Court — Dismissal—Presumptions.
A rule of the trial court providing for the dismissal of causes for failure of prosecution is valid and the court has power to enforce it. And where the facts to which the court applied the rule in dismissing a case are not .before the appellate court it cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or violated the law in applying the rule.
7. Appellate Practice — Supplemental Record.
Leave will not he granted to a party to file a supplemental record, after the case has been decided and pending a motion for rehearing to bring before the court a rule of the trial court where the briefs of the adverse party contended that the rule was not before the court and the party making the request had ample warning of the contention that the rule was not in the record and ample opportunity to amend the record before the cause was determined.
Error to the District Court of Lake County.
Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., and Mr. John M, Maxwell, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Thomas, Bryant & Lee, for defendant in error.
Mr. A. S. Blake, of counsel.

Opinion:
Gunter, J.
March 5, 1895, complaint in adverse suit filed in district court of Lake county, 23d of same month defendant's demurrer. March 7, 1898, cause called by court as within rule for dismissal for want of prosecution. On motion of plaintiff's then counsel question whether case should be dismissed for. want of prosecution under rule 18 of said court set for hearing at 2 o'clock p. m. March 8, 1898. Hearing had, plaintiff and defendant appearing by' respective counsel, evidence and argument heard. ' Court found case should- be dismissed and entered judgment in which appears: "It is ordered by the court that this case be and the same hereby is dismissed for want of prosecution under rule 18 of the rules of this court, no good cause having been shown to the court why the same should not be dismissed." To this ruling an exception saved in bill of exceptions. (Folio 73, record.) Motion for reinstatement heard and denied March 14, 1898. Exception to order preserved in bill of exceptions. (Folio 75, record.)
Plaintiff assigns errors in above orders of March 9 and 14.
1. A ruling upon the motion to strike the bill of exceptions is unnecessary, for the purpose hereof it will be considered a part of .the record. So assumed, the case for review is:
The district court after full hearing, all parties in interest voluntarily present, dismissed the above cause for lack of prosecution under rule 18 of that court. A motion for reinstatement was thereafter entertained and after full hearing, all parties in interest present, was denied. Rule 18 not being preserved in the bill of exceptions is not before us.— Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Haskins, 115 Ill. 300; Harrigan v. Turner, 53 Ill. 292; Anderson v. McCormack, 129 Ill. 308; Encyclopedia Pleadings and Practice, vol. 3, 387.
The facts upon which the court acted in ordering the dismissal are not before us, not being preserved by bill of exceptions; so with the facts upon which it acted in denying the reinstatement.
A ruling upon the question whether written notice to plaintiff was required by the code of the court's action in calling this case upon its own motion under the rule is not necessary, because if such notice was necessary it was waived by counsel for plaintiff voluntarily having the matter set when called, and appearing without objection on the day so set,- and going into the trial of the question whether the ca^e should be dismissed for lack of prosecution under the rule. Taking such matter up without notice, if error, was but an irregularity which could be waived.—Greig v. Clement et al., 20 Colo. 167, 37 Pac. 960; Archibald et al. v. State of Tenn., 8 Heiskell, 871; Rich v. Starbuck, 45 Ind. 310.
The case is reduced to this: A judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, of the parties and power to enter the judgment in question, is assailed for error; wherein the error consists we are not informed by the record. This judgment is presumed to have been regular in every respect unless the contrary appears in the record.—Andrews v. Carlile, 20 Colo. 372, 38 Pac. 465; Martin v. Force, 3 Colo. 199.
2. The contention that the dismissal of this case without a verdict is obnoxious to section 2326, Revised Statutes of the United States, has been denied by our supreme court in Kirk et al. v. Meldrum et al., 28 Colo. 453, 65 Pac. 633.
As the judgment below is presumed to have been regular in every respect, and as this presumption has not been overcome by the record it will be affirmed.
Affirmed.