Brown v. Fenton

• Decision Date: 08 June 1936
• Docket Number: 13945.
• Citation: Brown v. Fenton, 58 P.2d 1214, 98 Colo. 577 (Colo. 1936)
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. FENTON et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

58 P.2d 1214

98 Colo. 577

BROWN et al. v. FENTON et al.

No. 13945.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 8, 1936

In Department.

Error to District Court, Kit Carson County; Arthur Cornforth Judge.

Suit by Daniel A. Fenton against H. E. Brown and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Sidney, P. Godsman, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error H. E. Brown, W. H. Jones, and M. A. Gulden.

Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and J. Glenn Donaldson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.

BURKE Acting Chief Justice.

These parties are hereinafter referred to by name. Fenton brought this suit in ejectment, in county court, against Gulden Brown, and Charles E. Gulden, to recover possession of a quarter section of land and damages for wrongful detention. Jones was substituted for Charles E. Gulden as successor in interest. The answer admitted Fenton's ownership and right of possession; denied ouster and damages; alleged that Jones owned the tract adjoining Fenton on the north, subject to a mortgage to Brown; that Gulden was in possession thereof; that the boundaries of the tracts were in dispute set out numerous landowners who would be affected by their establishment; and demanded that these be made parties and the disputed boundaries established by a surveyor appointed by the court. Thereupon the cause was transferred to the district court and many of the parties named, including the state, appeared. There were additional complaints and answers and numerous demurrers, unnecessary here to specify. The question raised by these were the sufficiency of the facts to require a survey, misjoinder of parties, and misjoinder of causes of action. Such of these demurrers were sustained and overruled as resulted in eliminating all the parties save the original plaintiff and defendants, and by specific order the cause proceeded as a simple action for possession and damages. The additional parties here appearing elected to stand on their pleadings and judgment was accordingly entered decreeing plaintiff to be the owner of the tract claimed and awarding him costs. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted. The assignment bears the signature of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, but the 37-page brief is not signed by counsel for the people, and Mr. Louis Vogt, who represented Fenton below, contents himself with a letter to the clerk of this court stating his reasons for not appearing. The thirteen assignments of error are very properly condensed in counsel's brief into three questions and these might better...