Alley v. McMath, 18359
| Decision Date | 09 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 18359,18359 |
| Citation | 346 P.2d 304,140 Colo. 600 |
| Parties | Nick ALLEY, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. James M. McMATH, also known as J. M. McMath, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Walter J. Predovich, A. T. Stewart, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
French L. Taylor, Denver, David M. Ralston, Trinidad, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as plaintiff, brought an action to compel the removal of a fence erected by defendant around real estate to which plaintiff claimed title. The land thus enclosed by such fence was that area lying within the outer perimeter of a reservoir at its high water mark. Defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, claimed ownership of the reservoir. The trial court entered judgment for defendant, and plaintiff is here on writ of error directed to that judgment.
The validity of plaintiff's title to the land depends upon a deed from The Dick Abstract and Investment Company to one H. W. Kilpatrick. This deed was executed December 31, 1945. After setting forth the legal description of the land conveyed, which admittedly included the area beneath the water in the reservoir, the deed contained the following:
Kilpatrick, the grantee in the above mentioned deed, conveyed to Kelley who in turn conveyed to plaintiff.
If the deed from the Investment Company to Kilpatrick is free from ambiguity then the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and plaintiff should be granted the relief prayed for. The trial court concluded that the deed was ambiguous and heard parol evidence, and on the basis thereof dismissed plaintiff's action.
The deed is before this court and the question as to whether it is ambiguous is solely a question of law. We are, therefore, not bound by the finding of the trial court since no question of conflicting evidence or credibility of witnesses is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ouedraogo v. Downtown Denver Bus. Improvement Dist.
...Homes, Inc., 463 P.2d 463, 463 (1970). Parol evidence is only permissible when the intent of the parties is not clear. Alley v. McMath, 346 P.2d 304, 305 (Colo. 1959). Here, there is overwhelming parol evidence to support DDBID's contention and it all comes straight from the mouth of Mr. Ou......
-
Premier Bank v. Board of County Com'Rs, No. 08CA2384.
...for abuse of discretion are subject to appellate review de novo when only questions of law are presented); Alley v. McMath, 140 Colo. 600, 602, 346 P.2d 304, 305 (1959) (when evidence consists solely of documents and the determinative question concerns the interpretation of those documents,......
-
Cheyenne Mountain School Dist. No. 12 v. Thompson
...Reviewing courts are not bound by a trial court's decision on the ambiguity of a contract, which is a question of law. Alley v. McMath, 140 Colo. 600, 346 P.2d 304 (1959). To ascertain whether certain provisions of a contract are ambiguous, "the language used therein must be examined and co......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Weld County v. Anderson
...court is obligated to make an independent judgment on the merits. Van Diest v. Towle, 116 Colo. 204, 179 P.2d 984. See Alley v. McMath, 140 Colo. 600, 346 P.2d 304. Each of the parties claims title to the parcel from a common grantor, the Denver Pacific Railroad. 2 That railroad was granted......