Buckman v. H.A. Marr Grocery Co., 12865.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1931
• Docket Number: 12865.
• Citation: 300 P. 894,89 Colo. 183
• Parties: BUCKMAN et al. v. H. A. MARR GROCERY CO.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

300 P. 894

89 Colo. 183

BUCKMAN et al. v. H. A. MARR GROCERY CO.

No. 12865.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 1, 1931

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1931.

In Department.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.

Action by the H. A. Marr Grocery Company against Charles J. Buckman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

W. B King, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Nathan H. Creamer and Fredrick P. Cranston, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

ALTER J.

The H A. Marr Grocery Company, a corporation, defendant in error hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, brought an action against Chas. J. Buckman, Wm. G. Duval, and C. E. Davison, plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as defendants, who were officers and directors of a corporation, to recover judgment for goods sold and delivered to the corporation, and for which plaintiff contends there was a personal liability under the statute. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court, upon motion of the plaintiff, directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and rendered judgment thereon, to review which, defendants prosecute this writ.

The Berrimoor Corporation, a Colorado corporation, of which the defendants were officers and directors, was engaged in the hotel business, and became indebted to plaintiff for goods sold and delivered to it between September 17, 1929, and June 13, 1930; on the evening of March 1, 1930, one of the defendants tendered the annual report of the Berrimoor Corporation for 1929, together with a check for corporation taxes and filing fees, to the secretary of state; on March 6, 1930, the secretary of state notified one of the defendants that the check presented with the annual report was insufficient, and that the sum of $23 would be required before the report could be accepted and filed; on March 27, 1930, the secretary of state again wrote the defendants to the same effect, and concluded this letter with the following: 'Will you please advise if check will be forwarded to this office or if report and check in the amount of $5.00 should be returned to you.'

On May 4, 1930, the following letter was written to the defendants by the secretary of state:

'We enclose herewith check #738 in the amount of $5.00 which amount we have been holding since March 1st, for your further remittance of $18.00 to cover the 1929 and 1930 corporation license tax and penalty and we have not

...