Amter v. Conlon

• Decision Date: 27 March 1893
• Citation: 32 P. 721,3 Colo.App. 185
• Parties: AMTER v. CONLON.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

32 P. 721

3 Colo.App. 185

AMTER v. CONLON.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

March 27, 1893

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Action by Anna Conlon against Marks Amter to remove a cloud from title. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Sullivan & May, for appellant.

Coe &amp Freeman, for appellee.

BISSELL J.

This litigation sprung out of the attempt by Marks Amter, the appellant, to subject certain real property which stood in the name of the appellee, Mrs. Conlon, and of which she claimed to be the owner, to the payment of a judgment which Amter had recovered against Daniel Conlon, the appellee's husband. Counsel suggest but two considerations in support of their contention that the judgment should be reversed. One rests solely upon the insufficiency of the complaint, and the other on the inadequateness of the testimony to support it. This removes the necessity otherwise than in the briefest manner to state the case made by the record. In March, 1889 Mrs. Conlon was the grantee by deed from the then owner of the premises which are the subject-matter of the suit. Subsequently Amter recovered a judgment against Daniel Conlon, indemnified the sheriff caused his execution to be levied on the property, had it sold, and became the purchaser. To remove the apparent cloud upon her title, Mrs. Conlon brought this action against Amter; and substantially stated that she held the fee-simple title; that the defendant claimed an interest and an estate in it adverse to her; and alleged that his claim was without right, and that he was without estate or interest. Her complaint closed with the usual and requisite prayer. The defendant demurred on the general ground of insufficiency. When this demurrer was overruled, he answered, setting up the recovery of his judgment, the levy of the execution, and sale of the property, and averred that Daniel, the husband, was really the owner of the estate, and that the title was taken in Mrs. Conlon's name to hinder and delay his creditors. This statement is sufficient to indicate the points made and the basis of the decision.

With reference to the error based on the inadequacy of the proof to support the decree, it is enough to say that with this contention we have no concern. There is enough evidence in the record to support the finding of the court, and to justify the decree. There are very few exceptions to the general rule that appellate tribunals will not disturb judgments...