Hipp v. Spencer

• Decision Date: 05 July 1910
• Citation: 48 Colo. 433,109 P. 1109
• Parties: HIPP v. SPENCER.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

109 P. 1109

48 Colo. 433

HIPP v. SPENCER.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 5, 1910

Appeal from Arapahoe County Court; Robert W. Steele, Judge.

Action by J. F. Spencer against W. C. Marshall. On the intervention of John Hipp, judgment was rendered adjusting his rights from which he appeals. Affirmed.

John Hipp, pro se.

W. T Rogers, for appellee.

BAILEY, J.

This case was originally begun and tried in a justice court, and is therefore without pleadings. From a judgment in the justice court appeal was taken to the county court, where it was again tried, and from a judgment in that court the case went by appeal to the Court of Appeals, and comes here by reason of the abolishment of that tribunal.

These are the facts: One W. C. Marshall owed J. F. Spencer plaintiff below, appellee here, a bill for work and labor amounting, according to Spencer, to $132.65. Spencer employed appellant John Hipp, intervener below, to collect the same and indorsed on the bill and signed the following: 'W. C Marshall: Please pay the above amount to John Hipp, or order and this will be your receipt for the same.' Presently thereafter Marshall paid $97 of this bill to Hipp in full thereof, but Spencer, apparently unwilling to accept that sum in discharge of his claim, and there being a dispute over Hipp's charge for collection, sued Marshall to recover the whole amount, and Hipp intervened, setting up the fact that the payment to him of the $97 was in full discharge of the claim, and that he, by reason of the written assignment, was the owner and entitled to the possession of the money; and further that, by reason of legal services in that behalf, he was entitled to a lien upon the full amount collected. Trial was had to the court, with a finding that $97 was all there was due Spencer, and that Spencer's claim had been discharged in full by Marshall's payment to Hipp, and, as to defendant Marshall, dismissed the case out of court, at the cost of plaintiff. Upon the intervention the court found that Hipp was entitled to retain, out of the $97, $15 as attorney's fee, and that the balance thereof, $82, should go to Spencer, and entered judgment accordingly. With this finding and judgment Hipp was dissatisfied and brings the case here for review, contending that there should have been no adjudication of the matter in dispute between himself and Spencer, but only a dismissal of the action, leaving their controversy to a...