Case Name: STEVENS v. SOLID MULDOON PRINTING CO.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1883-12
Citations: 4 Colo. L. Rep. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEVENS v. SOLID MULDOON PRINTING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Law Reporter
Volume: 4
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
STEVENS v. SOLID MULDOON PRINTING CO.
(Supreme Court of Colorado,
December Term, 1883
Error to the District Court of Ouray County.)
1. Judgment—Form of. A strict compliance with forms is not essential to the entry of judgments; yet to constitute a final judgment the record must not only indicate that an adjudication took place, but the entry must have been intended as the entry of a judgment. “The Court having heard the same, the motion was granted and the action dismissed at plaintiff’s costs,” is not a judgment.
2. Same—Appeal. In such case, there being no final judgment either to affirm or reverse, the writ of error must be dismissed.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The record in this case fails to disclose anything which by the most liberal interpretation can be termed a final judgment.- The nearest approach thereto is the following language, viz: "The Court having heard the same this motion was granted and the action dismissed at plaintiff's costs." This is a mere declaration that the action was dismissed at the plaintiff's costs; it does not profess to be a judgment, neither does it appear, therefrom, that it was intended to be such. "A strict compliance with forms is not essential in the entry of judgments, yet to constitute a final judgment the record must not only indicate that an adjudication took place, but the entry must have been intended as an entry of judgment." Alvord et al. v. McGaughey, 5 Colo., 244.
Thomas George, for plaintiff in error.
Markham & Patterson, W. Harrison and F. C. Goudy, for defendant in error.
There being no final judgment to either affirm or reverse, the writ of error must be dismissed. Writ dismissed.