Adams Bank v. Jones
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Wilde
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Colorado
Related Laws
Outcome
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's order, holding that the 2016 statutory amendment automatically terminating the prior ATP relationship did not apply retroactively to claimant's pre-amendment physician change, and that the termination provision in section 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV) applies only to one-time changes under (5)(a)(III).
Excerpt
Assumpsit on the following promissory note : “Adams Bank, June 1, 1833. Ninety days from date, we, Eliphaz Jones and Asa Severance, as principals, and Cyrus Alden, as surety, for value received, jointly and severally promise the President, Directors and Company of the Adams Bank, to pay them or their order, fourteen hundred dollars at their banking house. Eliphaz Jones, Asa Severance, Cyrus Alden. Please pay proceeds to Stephens & Corlies or order. Eliphaz Jones.” The defendant Jones did not appear. The defendants, Severance and Alden, appeared separately, and moved that the action should be dismissed, on the ground, that the counsel appearing in behalf of the plaintiffs were not authorized to prosecute the action. The parties stated a case. The counsel for the plaintiffs appeared in behalf of the firm of Stevens & Corlies, of New York, who, as they contended, were the equitable assignees of the note. In the autumn of 1832, Severance entered into partnership with Jones, but after three or four months the partnership was dissolved. The note in suit was made for the purpose of obtaining money from the bank by a discount thereof, in order to pay the debts of Jones & Severance. By the deposition of Henry H. Reynolds it appeared, that Jones, in April 1832, purchased goods of Stevens & Corlies, to the amount of $718-78, on a credit of twelve months, which were delivered to his order ; that in May 1833, Jones proposed to Stevens & Corlies to give in payment of the debt due from him to them, a joint note of Jones, Severance and Alden for $1400, payable to the order of the President and Directors of the Adams Bank ; that Jones stated, that he had expected on his way to New York, to have had the note discounted at the bank ; that the cashier declined discounting it, but said it should be discounted in a week or ten days ; that Stevens & Corlies agreed to take the note on the following conditions, to wit: that they should sen
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Disability, Ohio Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, substantially limits, physical impairment, constructive discharge, R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.06(E), R.C. 4112.08, R.C. 4112.02(A), Adm. Code 4112-5-08(E), Adm. Code 4112-5-01, 42 U.S.C. 12102(4), 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i), earnings, back pay
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.