Greenlees v. Chezik

Citation68 Colo. 521,190 P. 667
Decision Date07 June 1920
Docket Number9832.
PartiesGREENLEES v. CHEZIK.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Department 1.

Error to District Court, Pueblo County; S.D. Trimble, Judge.

Action by J. A. Chezik against J. R. Greenlees. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

J. T McCorkle and S. S. Packard, both of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.

Benjamin F. Koperlik, of Pueblo, for defendant in error.

BURKE J.

Plaintiff in error, J. R. Greenlees, executed and delivered to one Mrs Louise Wiley his promissory note for $1,750. Mrs. Wiley negotiated this note to defendant in error, J. A. Chezik. Chezik brought suit thereon against Greenlees and recovered judgment. From that judgment this writ is prosecuted and the cause is now before us on application for supersedeas. Extended briefs have been filed, and no reason appears why the cause should not now be finally disposed of. The validity of the judgment in question depends upon certain defenses to this note, but two of which demand consideration.

It is asserted that delivery of the note to Wiley was conditional the condition being that it should be used only for the purchase of lots in the city of Pueblo, which were to pass to Greenlees under a contract which he had with Wiley; that this condition was never fulfilled; and that Chezik took the note with full knowledge of these facts; hence his title is invalid. It is clear that the lots mentioned were to be purchased from different owners at different prices and transferred to Greenlees at a uniform price of $40 each. It is therefore apparent that the delivery of the note to Wiley carried with it the right of negotiation, without which it would have been valueless. Moreover it is alleged, and undisputed, that this note was paid by Greenlees to Wiley without cancellation or delivery. A plea of payment admits the original liability. Mohr et al. v. Barnes, 4 Colo. 350. Such admission by plea cannot be contradicted by the party making it. Harvey et al. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 56 Colo. 570-572, 139 P. 1098; Hamilton v. Moore, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 570.

Payment by the maker of negotiable paper, and plea thereof, is the most solemn recognition of execution, delivery, and consideration, and these things he is thereby estopped to deny. Such estoppel might, of course, be removed by evidence of fraud, duress, etc., but this record discloses no such evidence.

Much space is devoted in these briefs to a ruling on the evidence of an attorney who testified that he advised Chezik of the conditions under which Wiley received the note. This testimony the trial court finally excluded on the ground that it was a confidential communication made by the attorney to Chezik in the course of professional employment. The confidential nature of the communication, as well as the employment, are denied and argued at length. Both become immaterial in view of what has already been said of the implied authority to Wiley to negotiate the note and Greenlees' recognition of her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Nohrnberg v. Boley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 1, 1925
    ......Hathaway, 153 Ky. 519, 155 S.W. 1155; Harper v. Clear Fork Coal & Land. Co., 80 W.Va. 246, 92 S.E. 565; Greenless v. Chezik, 68 Colo. 521, 190 P. 667; Lee v. Little, 81 Okla. 168, 197 P. 449; Jones on Evidence,. sec. 274.). . . The. judgment of the ......
  • Martinez v. Affordable Housing Network
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • May 20, 2004
    ...a third person, the law places the loss on the one who put it in the power of the third person to commit the fraud."); Greenlees v. Chezik, 68 Colo. 521, 190 P. 667 (1920). II. Damage On cross-appeal, the AHN defendants object to several aspects of the damage awards. We agree that one jury ......
  • Patteson v. Myers
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 1, 1938
    ...which it was desired to present that evidence. On that point, however, the courts of some jurisdictions have spoken. In Greenlees v. Chezik, 68 Colo. 521, 190 P. 667, was held in the ninth paragraph of the syllabus: "Alleged newly discovered evidence, consisting of public records of which a......
  • Goodrich v. Union Oil Co. of California
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 31, 1928
    ...... This principle of law and logic has been repeatedly announced. by the courts. Mohr v. Barnes, 4 Colo. 350; Greenlees v. Chezik, 68 Colo. 521, 522, 190 P. 667; McMahon v. Williams,. 80 Colo. 249, 250, 250 P. 560. The trust deed was foreclosed. to satisfy the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT