This case involved a claim for workers' compensation benefits by the widow and children of Charles E. Lynch, who died in a car accident in Wyoming while traveling between construction job sites as a foreman for a Colorado company. The Industrial Commission awarded benefits, but the district court vacated it, finding the accident did not qualify under the statute. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment since Lynch was proceeding as directed to the next assignment, and that the Workmen's Compensation Act applies to accidents outside the state when the employment contract was made in Colorado, to fulfill the statute's purpose of protecting workers and employers without absurd jurisdictional limitations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether money advanced by the plaintiff for the purchase of a Denver residence was a loan repayable by the defendant under a verbal agreement or instead a gift. The plaintiff sought recovery of the sums paid plus a vendor's lien, but the defendant answered with a general denial and contended at trial that no repayment obligation existed. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which the trial court entered as judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that evidence of a gift was admissible under a general denial because it directly controverted the plaintiff's allegation of a loan agreement, and that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving the existence of the debt.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned the estate of Henry Alerton, who had separated from his wife Lizzie Alerton after thirty years of marriage via a written agreement that divided their property and allowed each to live independently without further claims on the other. After Alerton's death, his will named Sarah E. Reading as executrix and left his property to others; the county court admitted the will, denied Lizzie's petition (brought by conservator John Deeble) for a statutory widow's allowance of $2,000, and confirmed Reading's appointment despite her hostility toward Lizzie. The district court affirmed. On appeal, the court held that the separation agreement did not waive Lizzie's right to the allowance, which is a protected first charge on the estate that cannot be relinquished by implication, and that Reading should not serve as executrix given her lack of interest in the estate and antagonism toward the widow, so Deeble should remain as administrator.

family lawpropertyprocedure