BOURNE v. ROSE, 149 Colo. 90 (1962)

(367 P.2d 912)

BAILEY BOURNE, D/B/A TRI COUNTY ELECTRIC v. P. M. ROSE.

No. 19,677.Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided January 15, 1962.

Action by assignee on claims for electrical supplies. Judgment for plaintiff.

Affirmed.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Reporter’s Transcript — Failure to Lodge in Apt Time — Record on Error. Where it appears that reporter’s transcript was not lodged in apt time and that trial judge twice refused to approve it, and where no explanation is made as to its inclusion in the record on error, the Supreme Court will not consider it for the purpose of review.

Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. William A. Black, Judge.

Page 91

Mr. GEORGE A. HINSHAW, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. GRAHAM SUSMAN, Mr. HYMAN D. LANDY, for defendant in error.

In Department.

Opinion by MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.

THE parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court where Rose was plaintiff and Bourne defendant.

Rose as assignee of two electrical supplies’ claims, which with interest totalled $7048.52, brought suit against Bourne to recover said sum plus costs. Bourne contends that the alleged accounts receivable were not properly identified according to the requirements of C.R.S. ’53, 153-1-3; that one of the accounts through offered in evidence was not thereafter admitted; that the two assignments were objectionable because of alleged failure to properly show the authority of the corporate agent who actually executed them; and, that one of the assignments was merely hearsay evidence.

[1] From the record it appears that the reporter’s transcript was not lodged in the trial court in apt time. The trial judge twice refused to approve it. No explanation is made as to how it came to be included in the record on error in this court, and we cannot consider it for the purposes of this review.

We have however considered the matters in dispute or orally argued in this court and as they appear in the respective briefs of the parties and find Bourne’s position to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FRANTZ and MR. JUSTICE McWILLIAMS concur.

Page 92