King Collection Bureau v. Bruns, 18881
| Decision Date | 08 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18881,18881 |
| Citation | 354 P.2d 609 |
| Parties | KING COLLECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff in Error, v. A. L. BRUNS, L. E. Nelson, W. L. Moore, George O. Moeller and Charles C. Smith, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert E. Cole, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Ernest O. Tullis, Colorado Springs, for defendants in error.
The parties are here in the same order they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error as plaintiff and defendants in error were defendants. We shall refer to them as they there appeared.
The action is on a promissory note for $3,175 executed by the defendants on December 13, 1955, due December 13, 1957. Plaintiff is the assignee of the original holder.
The complaint set out the note asserting that it had not been paid, and judgment prayed for the principal sum plus interest. The defendants by answer alleged that the note contained the following clause:
'This note can be repaid by the return of the participating production certificates and common stock,' and specifically described certain participating production certificates and common stock which they alleged were intended as the certificates and stock referred to in the note. They further alleged that under this clause the defendants had the option of paying the note in cash or by the return of the mentioned securities.
The defendants deposited the securities in court for the purpose of discharging the note. Plaintiff by reply admitted that the note contained the clause quoted, admitted that the participating production certificates and the common stock described by defendants were the particular certificates and stock referred to in the note, but denied that defendants had the option of paying the note by return of the certificates. It further alleged that the certificates were purchased by the defendants upon the promise that if a merger of a certain corporation with another corporation were accomplished the note would then be paid in money; that this merger of the two corporations had been accomplished; that the certificates and stock sold to the defendants was conditional upon this merger and that the merger having been accomplished the condition was met and the defendants owed the principal amount of the note in money.
The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, and after argument thereon judgment was entered for the defendants, and the plaintiff is here on writ of error.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the defendants, claiming that there were issues of fact raised by the plaintiff's reply; that the terms of the note are ambiguous and that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial