George W. Allen

This case involves a 1925 petition for contempt against a husband for failing to pay alimony ordered in a 1910 divorce decree, which required $25 monthly for the support of the wife and minor child. The trial court found the husband in contempt and awarded $1,875 for the child's benefit based on $12.50 per month over 12.5 years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the wife's laches after more than 15 years barred enforcement through contempt proceedings, as any recovery would reimburse the wife who had supported the child, and there was insufficient cause for the delay. The court also dismissed the related writ of ne exeat due to lack of evidence.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure where the plaintiff, after purchasing the property at a sheriff's sale for the amount of the judgment, sought appointment of a receiver to take possession during the redemption period and apply rents toward unpaid taxes. The trial court denied the request, and the plaintiff appealed, seeking a supersedeas to review that order. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a mortgagor retains the right to possession until redemption expires and that appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly. It found no abuse of discretion because the mortgagor testified to plans to cultivate the land and redeem it, unlike cases where the mortgagor showed no intent or ability to redeem. The application for supersedeas was denied and the judgment affirmed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for feloniously and knowingly possessing a still intended for manufacturing intoxicating liquor under a 1925 Colorado statute. The defendant challenged the admission of evidence showing his possession of mash and intoxicating liquor, arguing it was irrelevant since the statute punishes mere possession regardless of intent. The court held that such evidence was admissible to demonstrate the intent to use the still for liquor manufacture, which helps establish both the fact of possession and that the device was indeed a still. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

criminal law

In Weaver v. Lynch, the plaintiff secured a judgment by confession on a promissory note that contained a clause waiving the defendant's right to claim property exemptions from execution under Colorado law. The trial court later vacated its prior finding regarding the waiver and enjoined seizure of exempt property, and the plaintiff sought review of that order. The sole issue was whether a waiver of exemption rights included in an executory contract such as a promissory note is enforceable. The court held the waiver invalid as against public policy, reasoning that exemption laws exist to protect debtors and their families, and that advance waivers in such contracts would undermine those protections by allowing creditors to obtain them when debtors are financially vulnerable; it therefore affirmed the trial court's order permitting the exemption.

propertyprocedure

The case involved three consolidated appeals from convictions under a Denver municipal ordinance that prohibited performing plumbing work without first obtaining a certificate of competency from the city's examining board and complying with state law. The defendants, who were apprentices employed by licensed plumbers, argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to them. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the ordinance does not apply to apprentices but that the evidence supported findings that the defendants had worked independently as journeymen plumbers without licenses, and that employers' failure to supervise did not excuse the violations.

business & regulatorycriminal lawlabor & employment

This case involves a stockholder petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the president and secretary of a corporation to permit inspection of the company's books, accounts, and papers. The trial court overruled the respondents' demurrers to the amended alternative writ, issued a peremptory writ, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that the writ was sufficient under the applicable statute, which grants any stockholder the right to inspect all corporate books at reasonable times, that allegations regarding the inadequacy of other remedies were unnecessary because mandamus was the only adequate remedy here, and that the writ properly included necessary allegations and negated the statutory exceptions for railroad and telegraph companies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Scott v. Woodhams, the plaintiff obtained a 1924 judgment foreclosing a mortgage and providing for a possible deficiency judgment against the defendants, which was later modified by an October 1924 order vacating the deficiency and requiring a partial refund. The plaintiff moved to rescind that modification, but the motion was denied in June 1925; a writ of error was then filed in April 1926. The court held that the October 1924 order constituted the final judgment because it definitively adjudicated the parties' rights by vacating the deficiency, modifying the original decree amount, and ordering restitution of funds. Under the applicable one-year limit for writs of error, the appeal was untimely since it was brought more than a year after the October order, and pending motions to vacate do not extend the deadline or make subsequent denial orders separately reviewable.

procedure

This case involves a motion by defendants W. H. Woodhams and Hattie Woodhams to dismiss a writ of error filed by the plaintiff. The matter is a companion case to Scott v. Woodhams, et al., 79 Colo. 528, differing only in the specific figures and land at issue, with identical legal questions and arguments presented. The court sustained the motion to dismiss the writ, relying on the reasons set forth in the opinion for the companion case. Justices Denison and Whiteord concurred in the decision.

propertyprocedure

In Weston v. Weston, the plaintiff husband filed for divorce, but after his complaint was dismissed, the case proceeded on the defendant wife's cross-complaint seeking only separate maintenance, resulting in a decree and later modification order for support payments. The husband sought review by writ of error without filing the five-day notice required under section 5605, C. L. 1921 for divorce actions, prompting a motion to dismiss the writ. The court denied the motion, holding that an action for separate maintenance is distinct from one for divorce because it affirms rather than dissolves the marriage relation, and thus is not subject to the special procedural restrictions of the divorce statute, as supported by prior case law such as Mercer v. Mercer and Mitchell v. Mitchell.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over whether land acquired as a federal homestead can be levied upon to satisfy a debt arising from a promissory note. Plaintiff Jackson obtained the land under the U.S. homestead acts, receiving his patent in late 1918, but defendant McKeown had signed the note as an accommodation maker in 1915 and paid it in 1921 after the patent issued; McKeown then obtained a judgment and sought to execute on the land. Jackson sued to enjoin the levy, relying on a federal statute providing that such lands shall not become liable for any debt contracted prior to issuance of the patent. The court reversed the judgment for defendants, holding the land exempt because the debt was contracted in 1915 when the note was signed, at which point the principal-surety relationship and obligation to indemnify arose, rather than when payment occurred in 1921.

propertyfederal power

This case involves an action to recover on five promissory notes secured by a deed of trust, where the plaintiff, as a pledgee holding the notes as collateral for a larger debt, sought a deficiency judgment after the property sold for less than the notes' amount. The defendant argued that defenses available against the original payee should apply to the plaintiff because the underlying $5,000 note had been partially paid, limiting the plaintiff's interest in the pledge below the deficiency claimed. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, reasoning that after accounting for payments, other security realized, and the plaintiff's payment to satisfy a prior lien on the property, the plaintiff's remaining interest in the pledged notes exceeded the amount of the deficiency judgment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Washington Securities Co. against Goodstein, a director of a corporation, seeking to hold him personally liable for unpaid rent installments due in 1923 under a 1921 lease, based on the corporation's failure to file its annual report. The trial court ruled for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under the relevant statute, liability attaches to debts "contracted" during the year before the report was due, and the debt here was contracted in 1921 when the lease was executed, even though the installments matured later in 1923. Therefore, the director was not liable because the contracting of the debt occurred more than a year before the default in filing the report.

business & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Washington Securities Co. against Goodstein, a director of a corporation, seeking to hold him personally liable for unpaid rent installments due in 1923 under a 1921 lease, based on the corporation's failure to file its annual report. The trial court ruled for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under the relevant statute, liability attaches to debts "contracted" during the year before the report was due, and the debt here was contracted in 1921 when the lease was executed, even though the installments matured later in 1923. Therefore, the director was not liable because the contracting of the debt occurred more than a year before the default in filing the report.

business & regulatory

This case is a will contest challenging the probate of John Hurley's 1920 will. After the will was admitted to probate in county court and again following a trial de novo in district court, the caveatrix appealed, arguing that the testator had not signed the document in the presence of the two attesting witnesses as required by statute. The court affirmed the probate judgment, concluding that the complete attestation clause reciting proper execution constituted prima facie evidence of validity even when witnesses' memories were incomplete or uncertain. Circumstantial evidence, including one witness's recollection of the testator holding a pen at the time of signing and the absence of any contradictory proof, was sufficient to support the finding that the statutory formalities were met.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a property owner suing the City of Telluride for damages after city officials, acting on orders from the mayor and council, destroyed his frame building as a nuisance under a local ordinance. The trial court granted a nonsuit to the city on the ground that nuisance abatement is a governmental function for which the municipality could not be held liable. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that a city acts at its peril when summarily destroying property that is not a nuisance per se, and that if the building was not in fact a nuisance, the owner may recover either on a tort theory or as compensation for private property taken for public use under the state constitution. The court noted that the plaintiff's evidence tended to show the building had been repaired and was not a nuisance, making the nonsuit improper, though it expressed no view on the ordinance's validity or on liability for actions by officers not directed by the mayor and council.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a replevin action by Kiddy Aeroplane Corp. against Edward Kress Construction Company over possession of 45 toy airplanes. The parties had contracted for the defendant to build 1,000 planes at its own expense, with the plaintiff to sell them and pay the defendant from sales proceeds, but the defendant built only 45 without delivering them. The court held that the plaintiff lacked any right to possession enforceable in replevin. It reasoned that even under the contract interpretation most favorable to the plaintiff, title to the goods does not pass without delivery or tender of delivery, leaving the contract executory and the plaintiff without ownership.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by the owner of a movie theater against Niagara Fire Insurance Company to recover under a fire insurance policy for the total destruction of a one-story frame building, its furniture, fixtures, and a moving picture machine. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full policy amount of $4,500 after a jury verdict, and the insurance company appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the award under the policy's replacement-cost provision. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that evidence of the property's original construction costs around 1920-1921, combined with a presumption that material prices remained similar by the time of the 1924 fire, was sufficient to establish what it would cost to replace the property with like materials at the time of loss. The court noted that this evidence met the policy's terms limiting liability to replacement cost and rejected the insurer's challenge to the verdict's evidentiary support.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case consolidated two actions for unlawful detention of real property, where the plaintiffs obtained judgments for possession after the defendant failed to complete payments under a 1920 land purchase contract and refused to vacate following a proper demand. The defendant argued that the agreement was not an "agreement to purchase" covered by the relevant statute (section 6369, C.L. 1921) and raised equitable defenses such as fraud. The court held that the contract qualified as one to convey title upon full payment, making it an agreement to purchase on the defendant's side, and that equitable issues did not impact the right to possession under the unlawful detainer statute. It therefore affirmed the judgments and denied the supersedeas application.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the plaintiff against a bank cashier for money had and received and damages, alleging that the defendant wrongfully converted $1,175 from a land sale deposit and withheld other funds from real estate purchase deposits, causing harm measured as interest. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the first and third causes of action, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the defendant was liable for damages based on the legal rate of interest for detaining the funds without authorization, citing precedent on bank officer misappropriation, and found no error in refusing a directed verdict, giving certain instructions, or denying amendment to a counterclaim for commissions.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a claimant's attempt to challenge an Industrial Commission award denying workers' compensation benefits after an initial denial by a referee. The claimant had petitioned for review, leading the referee to refer the matter to the full Commission, which also denied compensation, but no further petition for review was filed before suing in district court. The court held that a petition for rehearing was required after the Commission's own award under the governing statute, and that failure to file one deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review the award. It therefore affirmed the dismissal of the action on demurrer. The decision rested on the procedural requirements of sections 95, 97, and 98 of the 1919 workers' compensation act as amended in 1923.

labor & employmentprocedure