Craft v. Stumpf, 15708.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | 15708. |
| Citation | 170 P.2d 779,115 Colo. 181 |
| Parties | CRAFT v. STUMPF. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Boulder County; Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Action by Karl S. Stumpf against Walter Craft to recover the reasonable value of furniture, fixtures and equipment of a restaurant and liquor sales business sold to defendant. To review a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant in action to recover reasonable value of restaurant equipment purchased by him could not urge error on failure to include license privileges, leasehold interest and good will in submitting question of value, where no objection was made to instruction on value as given and no evidence was tendered concerning such elements of value, particularly since such omission was to defendant's advantage.
Samuel W. Johnson and Paul A. Johnson, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Rinn & Connell, of Boulder for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, Stumpf, plaintiff below, brought this action in the District Court of Boulder county, where he resided, to recover the reasonable value of the furniture, fixtures and equipment of a restaurant and liquor sales business sold to defendant and located in Jefferson county. Craft, the defendant below seeks review of the judgment against him.
Error is first assigned to denial by the trial court of defendant's motion for change of place of trial to Jefferson county upon the ground that the defendant resided and had his place of business in Jefferson county and was there served with process and 'That the goods which are the subject matter of this action are located in Jefferson County, Colorado, and the contract entered into by plaintiff and the defendant is to be performed in Jefferson County Colorado.'
It is urged that this is an action 'affecting property' which under rule 98(a) should be tried in the county where located. That section, which combines former code sections 25 and 26, has to do with actions affecting specific property and does not control in an action in which there is no issue as to title, lien, injury, quality or possession, but which is concerned only with recovery of the purchase price. It has no application here.
It is next urged that the action is upon a contract which was to be performed in Jefferson county. No part of the contract was in writing and by their affidavits submitted in support of the motion, plaintiff asserted that performance and payment were to be made in Boulder county and defendant that they were to be made in Jefferson county. Moreover, plaintiff urges that this is an action for goods sold and delivered and hence may be tried in the county where plaintiff resided regardless of the county in which the contract was to be performed. Defendant, on the contrary insists that this is not an action for goods sold 'in the commercial market' and further, that in addition to goods, the sale included a leasehold interest.
While apparently possession of leased property where the chattels were located was included in the agreement, nothing was to be paid for the leasehold. Defendant's motion for change of venue refers to 'the goods which are the subject matter of this action' and the sole issue submitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starkovich v. Noye
...variance will not be considered as material, Thompson v. Hickman, 89 Cal.App.2d 356, 200 P.2d 893 (1949), or fatal, Craft v. Stumpf, 115 Colo. 181, 170 P.2d 779 (1946), and the party failing to make an objection to a variance at the time the evidence is introduced will not be permitted ther......
-
7 Utes Corp. v. District Court In and For Eighth Judicial Dist. (Jackson County), 84SA333
...An action affecting real property is one in which "title, lien, injury, quality or possession" is at issue. Craft v. Stumpf, 115 Colo. 181, 182, 170 P.2d 779, 780 (1946); see Gordon Inv. Co. v. Jones, 123 Colo. 253, 227 P.2d 336 (1951); Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449......
-
Musick v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n
...Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124 (Colo.App.1986); Elsenson v. Elsenson, 158 Colo. 394, 407 P.2d 20 (1965); Craft v. Stumpf, 115 Colo. 181, 170 P.2d 779 (1946). Especially in contemporary context when emphasis upon alternate dispute resolution (ADR) may be symptomatic of decreased conf......
-
In re City of Colorado Springs v. Board of Commissioners of County of Pueblo, Case No. 06SA162 (Colo. 11/13/2006)
...claim must relate to the "title, lien, injury, quality, or possession" of the property, franchises, or utilities. Craft v. Stumpf, 115 Colo. 181, 182, 170 P.2d 779, 780 (1946). However, as we implicitly held in Eagle I and make explicit here, when the requested relief is directed to the val......