Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 10860. |
| Citation | 75 Colo. 570,227 P. 564 |
| Parties | INTERMOUNTAIN LUMBER CO. v. RADETSKY et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 7, 1924.
Department 2.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.
Action by the Intermountain Lumber Company, a corporation, against A. H. Radetsky and others. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff brings error.
Reversed with directions.
Crump & Riley, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Quiat & Ginsberg, of Denver (Harrie M. Humphreys, of Denver, of counsel), for defendants in error.
A demurrer to the complaint was sustained; defendant had judgment accordingly; and plaintiff brings error.
The complaint alleges at too great length, with repetition and evidential matter in substance as follows: That plaintiff intrusted to defendant Ginsberg a warranty deed from defendant Radetsky to the plaintiff for record; that thereupon the defendants Radetsky, Ginsberg, and Quiat conspired to and did secretly withhold the deed from record and pursuant to said conspiracy and to prevent its record falsely represented to plaintiff that it had been recorded; that plaintiff relied upon the statements so made that the deed had been recorded, and so relying expended large sums on the improvement of the property and in complying with contracts with defendants pursuant to which said deed was made and made further payment to defendant Radetsky pursuant thereto; that upon discovery of the suppression of said deed plaintiff demanded that it be recorded, which defendants refused, and demanded that it be returned to plaintiff, which defendants refused.
The demurrer was only for want of facts. Much of the argument of defendants in error is therefore irrelevant. If there was misjoinder of causes or a defect of parties, or if causes were not spearately stated, these points should be made as required by the Code.
It seems clear that the complaint states a cause of action in tort. It would be a reproach to the law if it afforded no remedy to one subjected to such treatment as is here alleged, all of which stands admitted by the demurrer. The plaintiff, apart from Ginsberg's agreement to record it, had a right to have the deed recorded. The defendants violated that right by withholding it from record, and by false statements preventing its record. A right to damages resulted. The amount of damages is not now before us.
The law which is evidenced by the citations in defendants' brief is sound. It is true that mere promises do not constitute actionable deceit; that false statements concerning what appears by public records are not ordinarily actionable because every one is bound to know the contents of such records; that one may not rely on gratis dictum, made by one under no legal duty to tell the truth; that one guilty of laches cannot maintain an action for deceit, and that an unrecorded deed passes title; but the complaint does not allege mere promises; the promise of Ginsberg to record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TA Pelsue Co. v. Grand Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 89-S-1645.
...nondisclosure. CJI-Civ.3d 19:17 (1990); Teare v. Sussman, 120 Colo. 488, 492, 210 P.2d 446, 448 (1949); Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky, 75 Colo. 570, 573, 227 P. 564, 565 (1924); Russell v. First American Mortgage Co., 39 Colo.App. 360, 565 P.2d 972, 974-75 (1977); McNeill v. Allen, 3......
-
Mayers v. Ridley
...responsible for about 95% of the deeds presented to the Recorder for filing. 15 See note 2 supra. 1 Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky, 75 Colo. 570, 227 P. 564, 33 A.L.R. 844 (1924). 2 24 App.D.C. 487, 499 (1905) (emphasis 3 Ibid. (emphasis supplied). 4 "It shall be a violation of this A......
-
Bailey v. Hansen
... ... Loverin v. Kuhne, 94 Conn. 219, 108 A. 554, 33 ... A.L.R. 848; Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky, 75 ... Colo. 570, 227 P. 564, 33 A.L.R. 844; and Goody v ... Maryland ... ...
-
State Bank of Wiley v. States
...Fraud cannot be predicated upon the mere non-performance of a promise or contractual obligation, Intermountain Lumber Co. v. Radetsky, 75 Colo. 570, 227 P. 564 (1924), or upon failure to fulfill an agreement to do something at a future time. See Yerington v. Riss, 374 S.W.2d 52 (Mo.1964); F......