186 P.2d 227
No. 15,875.Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided October 20, 1947. Rehearing denied November 10, 1947.
On motion to dismiss writ of error and for affirmance of judgment.
Judgment Affirmed.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Practice and Procedure — Abstracts of Record.
An abstract of record which is a confused, garbled and distorted document, and which fails to comply with the rules concerning the preparation of abstracts, should be stricken.
2. Writs of Error — Disposition on Merits. Although a writ of error is void of merit, the appellate tribunal may pass on the merits of the controversy and announce an affirmance of the judgment.
Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. Robert W. Steele, Judge.
Mr. E. V. HOLLAND, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. I. L. QUIAT, Mr. J. F. SEEMAN, for defendants in error.
Page 255
En Banc.
MR. JUSTICE HILLIARD delivered the opinion of the court.
THIS matter, primarily, is pending on the motion of defendants in error to strike the abstract and brief of plaintiffs in error, and to dismiss the writ of error. The motion is based on Shotkin v. Kaplan, 116 Colo. 295, 180 P.2d 1021, where we announced, that thereafter only through counsel should Shotkin institute actions in trial courts or prosecute writs of error here. In the present instance Shotkin prepared the abstract, but did employ counsel to prepare the brief. The abstract, in addition to its unauthorized authorship, is open to the criticism which attended the case of Shotkin v. Kaplan, supra, that is to say, it “is a confused, garbled, * * * and * * * distorted document, and fails to comply with any of the rules concerning preparation of abstracts.” It should be stricken, and but for our regard for counsel the motion to that end, and to dismiss the writ of error, would be granted out-of-hand. Instead of doing so, however, and proceeding in the light of the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error on the merits, we have been at pains to examine the record at length. Our study convinces that the writ of error not only is void of merit, but is an attempt to have us re-examine the identical questions between the same parties, and concerning the possession of the same property, heretofore finally determined adversely to plaintiffs in error.
The premises considered, justice demands, and procedural rules require, that we now announce what ultimately we would be compelled to hold, namely, that on the merits of the controversy the judgment should be affirmed. Let it be so ordered.
Page 256