Court Opinion

ID: 9865131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:24:53.510998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:32.947703
License: Public Domain

*303Mr. Justice Hays
dissenting.
For reasons hereinafter stated, I dissent from the majority opinion.
In construing our rule 15 (b) we have held that in the absence of motions or objections any issue which the parties see fit to present may be considered and determined by the trial court, and that the pleadings become functus officio. Carlson v. Bain, 116 Colo. 526, 182 P. (2d) 909; Scheller v. Mawson, 117 Colo. 201, 185 P. (2d) 1009; Toy v. Rogers, 114 Colo. 432, 165 P. (2d) 1017; see, also, address of Mr. Thomas Keely of Denver Bar appearing in volume 1, ’35 C.S.A., pp. 449, 461. During the course of the trial Mr. Dugan, counsel for plaintiff in error, expressly stated: “The sole question is, whether she [claimant] was employed for a year prior to his [Hirshorn’s] death.” A careful examination of the record convinces me that the case was tried both in the county and district courts upon the above theory and no objection was made by plaintiff in error to such course of trial.
Counsel for plaintiff in error in the preparation of the specifications of points upon which they rely for reversal of the trial court’s judgment must have had before them our rule number 111 (f) which provides with respect to specification of points that, “Each such specification shall set out separately and particularly, each point relied upon * * and that “ * * * counsel shall be confined to the points so specified but the court may in its discretion notice any error appearing of record.” Construing the above rule we have held that the only questions before this court are those raised by such specification of points. Stanton v. Union Oil Co., 111 Colo. 414, 142 P. (2d) 285.
In the specification of points which counsel for plaintiff in error claim justifies a reversal of the trial court’s judgment, they allege that “there is manifest error in the record and proceedings of this cause * * * in the *304following particulars: * * * ' 3. That the trial court erred in holding and finding that the petitioner herein was a bona fide employee of the Algerian Club for more than (1) year prior to the date of the death of the said H. Hirshorn.”
Accordingly, the error, which the trial court is alleged in the specifications to have committed, is in finding as a fact that “petitioner herein was a bona fide employee of the Algerian Club * * *,” and not that the court was without right or authority to determine such question, which is the basis for the majority opinion. In the absence of. proper objections in the trial court and appropriate specifications here, the above question, as I view it, is not before this court. It is manifesitly unfair to defendant in error to reverse the judgment of two courts in her favor, upon' a theory not presented in the trial court nor specified here as error.
Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard concurs in this dissent.