Bennett v. Laws

• Decision Date: 05 April 1915
• Docket Number: 7834
• Citation: 149 P. 439,59 Colo. 290
• Parties: BENNETT v. LAWS et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

149 P. 439

59 Colo. 290

BENNETT v. LAWS et al.

No. 7834

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 5, 1915

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1915

Error to District Court, Mesa County; Sprigg Shackleford, Judge.

Action by John M. Bennett against John A. Laws and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

George Bullock and Logan & Miller, all of Grand Junction, for plaintiff in error.

Wheeler & Weiser, of Grand Junction, for defendants in error.

HILL J.

This controversy is over the title to an undivided one-fourth interest in four lots in Grand Junction. The facts admitted by the pleadings are: That on December 17, 1903, Jarvis L Bennett, being the owner of these lots, conveyed them to his four sons, one of whom is the plaintiff in error, each receiving an undivided one-fourth interest; that on April 7 1907, the four sons executed and delivered to the father a power of attorney in the usual form, which, omitting the formal parts, states that reposing special trust and confidence in our father, etc., we have made, etc., and do make, constitute, and appoint him our true and lawful attorney for us in our name, place, and stead, for his sole use and benefit, to sell, transfer, assign, lease, mortgage or otherwise incumber or dispose of these lots, etc., and acknowledge or make any deeds, mortgages leases, or other written instruments to effectuate said purposes or any of them, to collect the purchase price for the sale thereof, and to appropriate and retain the same, or any part thereof, to his own use, hereby in consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, make this power of attorney irrevocable during the lifetime of the said Jarvis L. Bennett, "hereby giving and granting unto our said attorney full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requested and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as we might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that our said attorney or his substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof," etc.; that on July 9, 1907, the father, Jarvis L. Bennett, sold and conveyed the lots in question to J.C. Jones by warranty deed, executed in his own name, the consideration being $5,800, there was no reference in this deed to the power of attorney; that on November 24, 1908, the plaintiff in error, John M. Bennett, executed a purported revocation of this power of attorney theretofore executed by him; that on June 1, 1909, the father, Jarvis L. Bennett, as the purported attorney in fact for his four sons, executed and delivered to J.C. Jones a warranty deed to correct the deed formerly executed and delivered to Jones on July 9, 1907; that upon the same date the other three sons conveyed to Jones any interest they might have therein; that on December 12, 1910, J.C. Jones, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to John A. Laws, one of the defendants in error, a warranty deed to the premises in controversy. These instruments were all recorded in the order and at about the dates of their execution. This action was brought by the plaintiff in error alleging his one-fourth ownership in the lots and asking for their partition, etc. By cross-complaint the defendant Laws alleged ownership and sought to have his title quieted as against the plaintiff. Judgment was in his favor. The plaintiff brings the case here for review.

If the deed from Jarvis L. Bennett to J.C.

Jones bearing date July 7, 1907, transferred title, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the instrument following other than the deed from Jones to Laws, the regularity of which is not controverted. It stands admitted that this first deed from Bennett to Jones was for value to an innocent purchaser in good faith, with notice of course of the contents of the power of attorney; but it is earnestly urged, as the deed does not purport to be executed by the father as the attorney in fact for the sons or in their names for them, but simply in his own name, that it did not pass...