Credit Inv. & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18891,18891 |
| Citation | 143 Colo. 393,353 P.2d 1098 |
| Parties | CREDIT INVESTMENT AND LOAN CO., Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, and Walter A. Woods, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
George F. Barbary, George C. Kellogg, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Max D. Melville, Fred M. Winner, Denver, for defendants in error.
The parties appear here in the same order as they appeared in the trial court. We shall so refer to them.
Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were granted and the action dismissed. Motion for new trial was denied and the plaintiff is here by writ of error.
Plaintiff's third claim is the principal one of five claims pleaded in its second amended complaint. The others are dependent upon it. It alleges that plaintiff and the defendant trust company entered into a contract on or about August 23, 1956, under which plaintiff purchased and sold to defendant trust company from time to time negotiable paper, evidencing home improvement and consolidation loans, maturing not later than thirty-six months after the date thereof in the aggregate sum of $114,152; that the purchase price was payable to plaintiff upon the delivery of the paper to the trust company, but that $57,076 of said purchase price remained unpaid on March 25, 1957; that he said sum of $57,076 was being held by the trust company in a reserve account until such time as plaintiff shall collect and remit to it the sums represented by the commercial paper mentioned; that any notes becoming three months delinquent could be returned to plaintiff by the trust company and charged to the reserve account; that as to completed transactions, it was agreed that the trust company should withhold one-half of the purchase price until collection of the paper; that plaintiff would pay interest and assume recourse liability on such paper, and that plaintiff reserved the right to enforce collection of the notes. It is further alleged that on March 25, 1957, defendant trust company disaffirmed and breached its contract with plaintiff by taking and exercising control of the collection of the paper involved; that the company's conduct gave plaintiff the right to treat the contract at an end; that the trust company should be required to pay to plaintiff the balance of the purchase price on deposit in the reserve account, being the sum of $57,076; and that plaintiff be relieved from the further payment of interest and recourse responsibility on the subject notes.
The first claim alleges that on February 8, 1957, plaintiff tendered to defendant trust company for purchase under the aforementioned agreement, commercial paper in the sum of $9,795.96, but that said defendant wrongfully refused to perform the contract, resulting in loss and damage to plaintiff in the sum of $1,694.70.
The second claim alleges generally that while the agreement between plaintiff and defendant trust company was in effect, plaintiff expended the sum of $9,066.75 in acquiring commercial paper for the said defendant from which plaintiff would have derived a profit of $6,346.75, and that the trust company revoked its offer to purchase and refused to consummate a purchase of such paper, to plaintiff's further damage in the sum of $15,413.50.
The fourth claim is against defendant Walter A. Woods, individually, and in substance alleges that Woods, individually or as an agent of defendant trust company, willfully and maliciously induced the defendant trust company to breach the contract between plaintiff and defendant trust company, to plaintiff's damage in the respective amounts alleged in the first, second and third claims for relief.
The fifth claim alleges that defendant Woods...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver v. Friedman
... ... trust, into which he deposited his interest in the limited ... Westfield Dev. Co. v. Rifle Inv. Assocs., 786 P.2d 1112, 1116-18 (Colo.1990); Trimble v ... Consultants, Inc., 690 P.2d 207, 210 (Colo.1984); Credit Inv. and Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., 143 Colo ... ...
-
Trimble v. City and County of Denver
... ... the principal's contractual relations, see Credit Investment & Loan Co. v. Guarantee Bank & Trust ... ...
-
Zelinger v. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company
... ... , Colo., 316 F.2d 51 372 P.2d 453; Credit Inv. and Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., ... ...
-
Memorial Gardens, Inc. v. Olympian Sales & Management Consultants, Inc.
... ... American National Bank of Denver, 174 Colo. 424, 484 P.2d 1230 (1971); ... Settlemeyer, Colo. 372 P.2d 453; Credit Inv. and Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., ... ...
-
Rule 56 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW.
...Morlan v. Durland Trust Co., 127 Colo. 5, 252 P.2d 98, 36 A.L.R.2d 874 (1952); Credit Inv. & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 143 Colo. 393, 353 P.2d 1098 (1960); Pnmock v. Hamilton, 168 Colo. 524, 452 P.2d 375 (1969); Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 ......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.5 • POTENTIAL CLAIMS OF THE OWNER
...Gardens, Inc. v. Olympian Sales & Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 690 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1984); Credit Inv. & Loan Co. v. Guar. Bank & Trust Co., 353 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1960).[140] CJI-Civ. 24:1 (CLE ed. 2020).[141] Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 940 P.2d 348, 352 (Colo. 1997......
-
The Scope of Permissible Interference With Contractual Relations
...1979). 11. Trimble v. City and County of Denver, 697 P.2d 716 (Colo. 1985). 12. Credit Inv. and Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., 353 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1960); Cronk v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n, 765 P.2d 619 (Colo.App. 1988); Zappa v. Seiver, 706 P.2d 440 (Colo.App. 1985). 13. F......
-
Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations in Colorado
...LLC, 310 P.3d at 194. [49] Trimble, 697 P.2d at 725–26 (citations omitted). [50] Credit Inv. and Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., 353 P.2d 1098, 1100 (Colo. 1960); accord Order of Ry. Conductors v. Jones, 239 P. 882, 883–84 (Colo. 1925) (“to induce without justification an employer ......