Heini v. Bank of Kremmling
| Decision Date | 09 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | 12941. |
| Citation | 25 P.2d 1113,93 Colo. 350 |
| Parties | HEINI et al. v. BANK OF KREMMLING. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, Grand County; Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Action by Katherine Heini and others against the Bank of Kremmling wherein the defendant filed a cross-complaint. To review a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Gooding & Monson, of Steamboat Springs, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred S Caldwell, of Denver, for defendant in error.
These parties appear here in the same order as in the trial court. We hereinafter refer to plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs, to Anton Heini, deceased (of whom plaintiffs are the heirs), as Heini, to defendant in error as the bank, to the Kremmling Cheese & Butter Company as the creamery, and to the two tracts of real estate involved as A and B.
Plaintiffs claiming to own A, sued the bank for $2,500 for gravel taken therefrom. The bank admitted taking gravel of the value of $200, but alleged that it owned A and that, because of certain alleged facts, plaintiffs were estopped to claim title thereto. It asked that its title be quieted as against plaintiffs, and that a deed to the tract be reformed as to description. The reply denied new matter and pleaded the seven-year statute of limitations, title by prescription, and laches. The pleadings consist of a complaint, amended complaint, answer and cross-complaint, replication and answer to cross-complaint, replication to plaintiffs' answer to defendant's cross-complaint, and certain demurrers. We assume these properly present the question hereinafter considered and notice them no further. The cause was tried to the court and judgment entered against plaintiffs on their demand and in favor of the bank reforming the deed and other instruments and quieting the bank's title as prayed. To review that judgment plaintiff's prosecute this writ. A motion to dismiss was heretofore denied with leave to re-present on final hearing. It is thus again Before us and perhaps should be granted, but we prefer to dispose of the cause on the main question.
May 6, 1908, Heini owned A and B, adjoining tracts, each containing about two acres. He then sold A to the creamery, but, through mutual mistake, B was described in the deed. The creamery took possession of A and built a factory thereon. In October, 1908, the bank, through its president, Heini, made a loan to the creamery and took for security a mortgage on A, but again, by mutual mistake, B was described. The creamery defaulted on this loan and the bank, acting through Heini, foreclosed. At the sale the bank bought. Both certificate of purchase, and deed issued thereon May 13, 1919, contained the erroneous description. After the issuance of the sheriff's deed the bank paid taxes on A, described as B, but assessed as 'a two acre tract of land adjoining the town of Kremmling,' which was true of A but not of B. Heini died in August, 1919, and the bank first discovered the error in description about April 10, 1928.
On the trial the bank first offered evidence in support of its cross-complaint and rested. Thereupon plaintiffs elected to stand on the case as so made. The evidence is not abstracted and no assignment is based upon it, hence we must assume that it supported all the facts pleaded by the bank and essential to the judgment. Those above recited are undisputed and dispose of the questions of title by prescription, the seven-year statute of limitations, and laches. They also demonstrate that plaintiffs have no equities and can prevail only, if at all, on a naked legal title directly inherited from the grantor at fault and protected by a technical rule.
The only assignment requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stubbs v. Standard Life Ass'n
...We think the rule as there declared was more narrow than its application. If not, it was departed from in Heini v. Bank of Kremmling, 93 Colo. 350, 25 P.2d 1113, 89 A.L.R. 1442, and we prefer to follow the broader rule there employed, in harmony with that of virtually all other The one seri......
-
Anderson v. Weise
...equity will work back through all and give the last vendee a right of reformation against the original vendor. Heini v. Bank of Kremmling, 93 Colo. 350, 25 P.2d 1113 (1933); Annot., 89 A.L.R. 1444 Weise-Dale are in privity with the Corries. In addition to the fact of privity, however, is th......
-
Sec. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Costello
...the sheriff's deed predicated on it will lie where the rights of third parties have not intervened. See Heini et al. v. Bank of Kremmling, 93 Colo. 350, 25 P.(2d) 1113, 89 A.L.R. 1442, and cases cited in note at page 1450. See, also, Note, 65 Am.St.Rep. 518. Whether such an action might be ......
-
Dennett v. Mt. Harvard Development Co.
...as against his vendor, the last grantee will be entitled to a reformation as against the original grantor.' " Heini v. Bank of Kremmling, 93 Colo. 350, 25 P.2d 1113 (1933). The foregoing rule is applicable where, as here, the rights of innocent parties have not intervened. Stubbs v. Standar......