Dunham v. Armitage, 13685.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | 13685. |
| Citation | 97 Colo. 216,48 P.2d 797 |
| Parties | DUNHAM v. ARMITAGE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1935.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; James C Starkweather, Judge.
Action by Alvin C. Armitage, as administrator, against Jessie L Dunham. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
A. X. Erickson and Emory L. O'Connell, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Dayton Denious, of Denver, for defendant in error.
An action in forcible entry and detainer, by Armitage, as administrator, defendant in error, against Miss Dunham plaintiff in error, who claimed title and right of possession pursuant to a writing at the hand of the administrator's decedent. To judgment awarding possession to the administrator, error is assigned.
While determination of right of possession on a restricted ground would suffice for the purposes of estate administration, the character and effect of the instrument on which plaintiff in error relies, ultimately to control, would remain to vex. Counsel have stressed the importance of the underlying problem, presented it ably and exhaustively, and in the interest of economy and expedition seek interpretation of the document on this review. The situation considered, we are disposed to go immediately to the major question.
The instrument, acknowledged and recorded the day of its date, if a conveyance, as claimed by plaintiff in error, operated to vest title in her; if it is testamentary, as defendant in error contends, title continued in the decedent. It reads:
'This Indenture, Made and entered into this 15th day of September, A. D. 1931, by and between Cordelia Armitage, of Denver, Colorado, party of the first part, and Jessie L. Dunham, as Trustee, of Denver, Colorado, party of the second part, witnesseth:
'That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, does hereby set over, transfer, assign and convey, unto the said Jessie L. Dunham, as Trustee, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the following described property, situated in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, to-wit: * * *
'The party of the first part shall retain possession and all rents, issues and profits therefrom during her lifetime, with full power and authority during her lifetime to lease and manage the said property, but the rents, issues and profits shall be first used for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver Nat. Bank v. Von Brecht
...or such construction given it by the parties; hence, the principal never divested himself of possession, and the case of Dunham v. Armitage, 97 Colo. 216, 48 P.2d 797 is then The trial court having predicated its opinion on Dunham v. Armitage, we refer to the holding in that case, where it ......
-
Exchange Nat. Bank of Colorado Springs v. Sparkman, C--783
...as when the putative settlor 'reserves possession and control in all particulars,' will it be deemed invalid. Compare Dunham v. Armitage, 97 Colo. 216, 48 P.2d 797 (1935), With Denver National Bank v. Von Brecht, supra, and Hageman v. First National Bank, supra. See also Dessar v. Bank of A......
-
Franco v. Gould, 13898.
... ... They cite, ... in support of their contention, Dunham v. Armitage, ... 97 Colo. 216, 48 P.2d 797. The situations involved in the two ... cases are ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Groussman, s. 70--607
...that a savings account be delivered to decedent's nieces and nephews upon the decedent's death was held void, and in Dunham v. Armitage, 97 Colo. 216, 48 P.2d 797, an instrument purporting to convey property, but retaining for the grantor not only the right to a life estate but also the rig......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.4 • REQUISITES
...Trautman v. Kranz, 165 P. 764 (Colo. 1917) (contingent remainder); Million v. Botefur, 9 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1932). 117. Dunham v. Armitage, 48 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1935). But see § 20.8, regarding beneficiary deeds. 118. 2 Patton and Palomar, Land Titles § 343 (3d ed. 2003). See McLeod v. Colo. Pow......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.2 • NONPROBATE TRANSFERS IN GENERAL
...made in accordance with the formal requirements of a will, are void. Coxwell v. Forster, 314 P.2d 302 (Colo. 1957); Dunham v. Armitage, 48 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1935); Smith v. Simmons, 61 P.2d 589 (Colo. 1936); see also Denver Nat'l Bank v. Von Brecht, 322 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1958) (a revocable trus......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.2 • NONPROBATE TRANSFERS IN GENERAL
...made in accordance with the formal requirements of a will, are void. Coxwell v. Forster, 314 P.2d 302 (Colo. 1957); Dunham v. Armitage, 48 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1935); Smith v. Simmons, 61 P.2d 589 (Colo. 1936); see also Denver Nat'l Bank v. Von Brecht, 322 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1958) (a revocable trus......