Bull v. Doss Bros. Elec. Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1911 |
| Citation | 51 Colo. 459,119 P. 156 |
| Parties | BULL et al. v. DOSS BROS. ELECTRIC CONST. CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Greeley W Whitford, Judge.
Action by the Doss Bros. Electric Construction Company against Cora F. Bull and another. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Writ dismissed.
W. W Dale, for plaintiffs in error.
Murray & Ingersoll and H. Wendell Stephens, for defendant in error.
March 21, 1910, the defendant in error, as plaintiff below recovered a judgment against plaintiffs in error, and two days thereafter, in order to make the same a lien upon the real property of the judgment debtors, caused a transcript of the docket entry of such judgment to be filed with the recorder of the city and county of Denver, as provided by section 251, Code Civ. Proc. (R. S. 1908). April 16, 1910, the judgment debtors, plaintiffs in error, brought the cause here for review, applied for, and secured, a supersedeas, staying the execution of the judgment. Thereafter, on August 22, 1910, plaintiffs in error paid the judgment, and had the same satisfied of record.
Defendant in error has filed a plea in bar, and moves to dismiss the writ, for the reason that plaintiffs in error voluntarily paid, satisfied, and discharged the judgment. Plaintiffs in error maintain that the payment and satisfaction of the judgment was under duress or compulsion, and therefore constitutes no bar to the prosecution of the writ of error. We are unable to concur in this view of the matter. Defendant in error did nothing except that which the Legislature authorized it to do. It made no illegal exactions of plaintiffs in error; indeed, no demand whatever. At the time no execution could have issued upon the judgment. The supersedeas stayed all proceedings to collect, so the judgment lien, though existing, was nonenforceable. It was no more incumbent upon plaintiffs in error to at that time satisfy the judgment than to liquidate an incumbrance before it became due, voluntarily placed upon their property. In either event, it might be to their interest or convenience to so do. They were engaged in buying and selling real estate and negotiating loans thereon, and, in order to more conveniently carry on that particular business, saw fit to satisfy the judgment, and remove the lien created thereby. This did not constitute duress.
The facts of this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reserve Life Ins. Co., Dallas, Tex., v. Frankfather
...v. Brown, 47 Colo. 513, 108 P. 971; Hawthorne v. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Sup. Co., 50 Colo. 342, 116 P. 122; Bull v. Doss Brothers Electric Const. Co., 51 Colo. 459, 119 P. 156; Nichols v. Katres, 57 Colo. 471, 140 P. 792; True v. True, 69 Colo. 502, 194 P. 1063; Walker v. Walker, 85 Colo......
-
Culp v. Sandoval
... ... Bull et al. v. Doss Bros. Electric Construction Co., ... 51 ... ...
-
Culp v. Sandoval.
...of the amount called for thereby. These facts are somewhat similar to those in the Colorado case of Bull et al. v. Doss Bros. Electric Construction Co., 51 Colo. 459, 119 Pac. 156. There the defendant in error recovered judgment against the plaintiffs in error, and, in order to make the sam......
-
Burns v. National Mining, Tunnel & Land Co.
... ... Grand Junction, ... 51 Colo. 353, 117 P. 997, and Bull v. Doss Bros. Co., 51 ... Colo. 459, 119 P. 156--are ... ...