Hoffman v. Brown
| Decision Date | 15 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18817,18817 |
| Parties | Manuel HOFFMAN and Louis Melnick, individually and as partners of Great Western Motor Co., a Copartnership, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Hamill BROWN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Ben Klein, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
George J. Robinson, Ray A. Curran, Lakewood, for defendant in error.
In the trial court Brown, defendant in error, was plaintiff and we will refer to him by name; plaintiffs in error were defendants and will be referred to as such or by name.
Brown, as lessor, entered into a written lease with defendants, as lessees, under which the latter went into possession of an automobile sales lot in Jefferson county. The leased premises included 'a frame building thereon containing 3 desks and 2 chairs, 1 Butane heater and a two-car garage containing one heater, together with all signs and lights.' The lease was dated January 15, 1954, and was for a term of three years beginning February 1, 1954. Brown alleged in his complaint that during their tenancy defendants destroyed, removed or damaged certain items of property in violation of the terms of said lease.
In their answer defendants admitted execution of the lease and occupancy of the premises under the terms thereof, but denied liability for any damages; and affirmatively alleged that all the leased property, real and personal, was surrendered to Brown at the expiration of the lease in the same condition it was received, except for 'ordinary wear and tear.'
The trial court entered judgment for Brown in the sum of $998.25 plus interest and costs. The issues were tried without a jury. Brown testified that at the beginning of the lease all the property allegedly damaged, removed or destroyed was on the premises.
A general contractor, called as a witness, gave his opinion concerning the amount of loss sustained by Brown. This evidence was objected to on the ground that the witness was not qualified to give expert testimony. The record shows that this witness had been in the general contracting business for twelve years. His testimony disclosed a wide range of experience in relation to the matters directly involved in the case, and the trial court properly overruled the objection to the competency of his testimony.
'The sustaining or overruling of objections to testimony of witnesses as to the value of property which is in almost universal use, when such objections are based upon the qualification of the witnesses to answer the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan Farmers Union Co-op. v. Swenson
...v. National Casualty Co., 10 Mich.App. 450, 159 N.W.2d 363 (1968); Costello v. Wood, 89 Ariz. 270, 361 P.2d 10 (1961); Hoffman v. Brown, 143 Colo. 587, 354 P.2d 599 (1960); Terry v. Biswell, 66 N.M. 201, 345 P.2d 217 The situation before us is quite similar to the one confronting the Suprem......
-
Baird v. Power Rental Equipment, Inc.
...of an expert and, unless there is an abuse of that discretion, the court's ruling will not be disturbed. Hoffman v. Brown, 143 Colo. 587, 354 P.2d 599 (1960). We find no error in the conclusion of the trial court that Dr. Reed's testimony was speculative and conjectural and was based upon h......
- Benson v. Bottger, 18494