Kelly v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 02 July 1906 |
| Parties | KELLY et al. v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1907.
Error to District Court, Gilpin County; A. H. De France, Judge.
Action by William H. Kelly and another against William J. Lewis. Judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.
George W. Forman and Chase Withrow, for plaintiffs in error.
Henry Howard, Jr., for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs below (and here) brought an action in replevin to recover the possession of certain mining machinery. The property had been placed upon certain mining claims by the Kelly Mining Company, lessee by assignment of the claims from the plaintiff Hafer. Before the Kelly Mining Company took an assignment of the lease, Hafer agreed in writing not to hold or claim a lien upon the machinery or tools placed upon the property, and consented that they might be removed at any time, provided all royalties and expenses incurred under the lease were fully paid. Some time after the Kelly Company entered into the possession of the property it was levied upon under a writ of execution from the county court of Arapahoe county and sold by the sheriff to R. E. Goodlet for the amount of the judgment, and was afterwards sold to the defendant Lewis. The mining company went into possession of the property in December, 1898, and on June 20th following Hafer, asserting the failure of the company to work and develop the claims as provided by the lease, took possession of the property. The court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. The case was taken by writ of error to the court of appeals. The assignments of error argued we shall consider in the course of the opinion.
A bond was given by the defendant for the return of the property. The bond being defective, the plaintiffs moved for an order directing the sheriff and the defendant to deliver the property replevied to plaintiffs. This motion was overruled and the defendant was granted leave to file an amended bond. This action of the court is assigned as error, but, as it does not affect the merits of the controversy, we shall not consider it.
The defendant alleged in his answer that before the Kelly Mining Company would accept the assignment of the lease 'they required of Joseph G. Hafer a contract in writing wherein and whereby it was agreed that whatever machinery and tools and implements were placed upon said mining claim by the said Kelly Mining Company in working and developing said mining claim under said lease and bond should be, and remain, the property of the company, and upon forfeiture or termination of said lease and bond that the said company, its agents or assigns, should have the right to remove the same.' On cross-examination of plaintiffs' witnesses it appeared that the plaintiff Hafer and the lessee, Goodlet, entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Bldg. Co. v. Patterson, 12372.
... ... upon the weakness of his adversary's, position. Hall ... v. Johnson, 21 Colo. 414, 418, 42 P. 660; Kelly v ... Lewis, 38 Colo. 18, 22, 88 P. 388; Buchanan v ... Scandia Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34, 36, 39 P. 899; 23 ... R.C.L. 866; 54 C. J. 439; ... ...
-
Brennan v. WA Wills, Ltd., 5827.
...weakness in the position of the defendant respecting title or right of possession. Hall v. Johnson, 21 Colo. 414, 42 P. 660; Kelly v. Lewis, 38 Colo. 18, 88 P. 388; Illinois Building Co. v. Patterson, 91 Colo. 391, 15 P.2d 699; Barslund v. Anderson, 106 Colo. 238, 103 P.2d 23. And the contr......
-
Radetsky v. Gramm-Bernstein Motor Truck Co.
...should have prevented a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34, 36, 39 P. 899; Kelly v. Lewis, 38 Colo. 18, 22, 88 P. 388; Cobbey on Replevin, §§ 783-786, 34 Cyc. 1476, 1479, It is suggested that the mortgage sale was void because the sale was not m......
-
Mountain Home Sheep Co. v. Faraday & Weaver
...841, 58 N.W. 288; Robb v. Dobrinski, 14 Okla. 563, 1 Ann. Cas. 981, 78 P. 101; Gallick v. Bordeaux, 31 Mont. 328, 78 P. 583; Kelly v. Lewis, 38 Colo. 18, 88 P. 388.) ownership or right of possession as between Mrs. Bengoechea and respondents is not involved in this proceeding, she not being......