Frost v. Fisher
Decision Date | 13 November 1899 |
Citation | 58 P. 872,13 Colo.App. 322 |
Parties | FROST et al. v. FISHER et ux. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Las Animas county.
Action by David Fisher and Martha Fisher against Walter C. Frost and James F. Chaney to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Bo Sweeney and Henry A. Dubbs, for appellants.
John A Gordon and A.P. Anderson, for appellees.
This is a suit to quiet title. The complaint alleges that on the 15th day of October, 1889, the plaintiffs, David Fisher and Martha Fisher, made and delivered to the Globe Investment Company of Boston, Mass., their promissory note for $1,500, due October 1, 1894, but payable, at the option of the makers, after three years from date, at the maturity of any interest coupon; that the payment of the note was secured by a deed of trust, executed by the plaintiffs, which conveyed to the defendant Frost, as trustee, certain land of the plaintiffs that afterwards, about December, 1887, the Globe Investment Company assigned the note, by guaranty, to the defendant Chaney; that the plaintiffs had no notice or knowledge of the transfer, but continued to deal with the Globe Investment Company as the owner and holder of the note; that this company, as the agent of Chaney, collected from the plaintiffs the interest notes as they fell due, and, at different times, the entire amount of the principal note; and that, notwithstanding the payment of the note, Chaney refused to deliver it up to them, or to release the property from the deed of trust, but was proceeding to sell their land under and by virtue of the trust deed. The prayer was that the cloud upon the plaintiffs' title be removed, the title quieted, the defendants decreed to surrender up the note and release the land from the trust deed, and that they be enjoined from selling the land. Chaney answered, alleging that on December 13, 1889, the note was sold to him by the Globe Investment Company, and was transferred to him by indorsement, averring that no part of the principal sum had ever been paid to him, and denying that the Globe Investment Company was ever his agent for any purpose.
The following is a copy of the note in question:
Across the face of the note, in red ink, are these words: "Payable after three years, at the maturity of any interest coupon." The note was folded inward twice. On the back of one fold are the words, "Pay to the order of ____," below which is this signature: "Globe Investment Company, by J. Lowell Moore, Treasurer." On the other fold, at the opposite end of the note, appears the following:
The following are the portions of the trust deed to which reference will be necessary in this discussion: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. Mccall
...74 Pa. St. 13; Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580; First Nat. Bank v. Flath (N. D.) 86 N.W. 867; Hamilton v. Fowler, 99 F. 18; Frost v. Fisher (Colo. App.) 58 P. 872; Thorpe v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149; City Nat. Bank v. Goodlow, etc., Co., 93 Mo. App. 123; Railway v. Bank, 136 U.S. 268; Carpe......
-
Hubbard v. Robert B. Wallace Co.
...205, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 498; Lundean v. Hamilton, 169 N. W. 208, 184 Iowa, 907. This is the rule in other jurisdictions. Frost v. Fisher, 58 P. 872, 13 Colo. App. 322. Nevertheless, it was held in Bank v. Arthur, supra, that the negotiability of a note was not affected by the provision in a m......
-
Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. McCall
...Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 101 N.W. 417, 68 L. R. A. 146, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003; Frost et al. v. Fisher et ux., 13 Colo. App. 322. 58 P. 872; Morgan Martien, 32 Mo. 438; Mason v. Barnard et al., 36 Mo. 384; Thompson v. Field et al., 38 Mo. 320; Owings v. McKenzie et al., 133 Mo. 323, ......
-
Hubbard v. Robert B. Wallace Co.
...158 Minn. 481 (198 N.W. 798); Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 291 (96 N.W. 1021); Peterson v. Kuhn, 110 Neb. 372 (193 N.W. 756); Frost v. Fisher, supra; Walker v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 686, 66 N.W. Hull v. Angus, 60 Ore. 95 (118 P. 284); Central Sav. Bank of Oakland v. Coulter (Cal. App.), 72 C......