E.F. Hallack Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray
Decision Date | 22 November 1893 |
Citation | 19 Colo. 149,34 P. 1000 |
Parties | E. F. HALLACK LUMBER & MANUF'G CO. v. GRAY et al. [1] |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.
Action by Henry N. Gray and another against the E. F. Hallack Lumber & Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendant appeals. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by GODDARD, J.:
On the 30th day of March, 1889, Gray Bros. & Co. instituted this action in the district court of Arapahoe county to recover from the E. F. Hallack Lumber & Manufacturing Company, a duly-organized corporation, damages for the conversion of certain collateral security. The conceded facts are that on the 1st day of January, 1885, Gray Bros. & Co. executed to the defendant company their certain promissory note for the sum of $2,214.25, payable, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, on the 1st day of May, 1885. On the 27th day of imannum. It is hereby agreed on the part February 1885, the plaintiffs indorsed and turned over to the defendant company, as collateral security for this note, a note held by them against the Albuquerque Water Company for $5,441.66, dated September 1, 1884, payable, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, on or before the 1st day of May, 1885, upon which had been indorsed a credit of $900 on November 18, 1884, under the following written agreement The allegations of the complaint, upon which appellees base their cause of action, are as follows: 'Plaintiffs further state that they are informed and believe, and therefore allege on information and belief, that said defendant, fraudulently confederating and conspiring with the said water company, the makers of said collateral note, to cheat, wrong, and defraud the plaintiffs, by effecting a compromise and surrender of said note for less than its face value, on or about the 1st day of December, 1888, and while the same was in the possession of and held by defendant, as collateral to said note of the plaintiffs, without any notice whatever to plaintiffs, without their knowledge or consent, and notwithstanding said collateral note then amounted, with interest, to the sum of $6,922.98, wrongfully compromised and surrendered said collateral note to the makers thereof, the Albuquerque Water Company aforesaid, or to some one for the use of said company, or to some one for their use for cancellation, for and in consideration of the sum of about $3,100, being less than half the face value of said note and interest, which said sum was then and there paid to and received by said defendant in full for said note, and thereupon said defendant, without any notice whatever to the plaintiffs, wrongfully, and in violation of the rights of plaintiffs in the premises, compromised, sold, surrendered, and delivered up said note to said water company, to the damage of plaintiffs in the sum of $6,922.98.' The defendants deny these allegations, and aver that they sold the principal note of Gray Bros. & Co. for the amount then due thereon, to one A. A. Grant, and transferred the note, together with the note of the Albuquerque Water Company, to him, as collateral security for the payment of the principal note, as they had a legal right to do, and in no other way have they sold or disposed of said collateral note. To support the issues on their part, the plaintiffs introduced the following correspondence:
The principal note and collateral were afterwards, and on October 23, 1888, sent to W. S. Strickler, cashier of the Albuquerque National Bank, with the following letter of instructions:
The plaintiffs also read in evidence the deposition of W. S Strickler, as follows: --and also the deposition of A. A. Grant, which is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gables Racing Ass'n Inc. v. Persky
... ... Hallack Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 19 Colo. 149, 34 ... P. 1000; ... ...
-
Brightson v. Claflin
...case where the facts are much stronger in favor of the plaintiff. See, also, Union Trust Co. v. Hasseltine, supra; Hallack, etc., Co. v. Gray, 19 Colo. 149, 34 Pac. 1000. [4] It being improper and unlawful for the defendant to sell money, his misconduct infected the sale of the pledged stoc......
-
Lovejoy v. Merchants' State Bank
... ... Enc. Law, ... 823, note 1; Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 19 ... Colo. 149, 34 P. 1000; Rosenzweig v ... Frazer, ... ...
-
Jenckes v. Rice
...Co. v. Lewis, 12 N. J. Eq. 323;Joliet Iron & Steel Co. v. Scioto Fire Brick Co., 82 Ill. 548, 25 Am. Rep. 341;Manufacturing Co. v. Gray, 19 Colo. 149, 34 Pac. 1000;Stevens v. Wiley, 165 Mass. 402, 43 N. E. 177, and see note in 43 L. R. A. 737;Cleghorn v. Trust Co., 57 Minn. 341, 59 N. W. 32......