Knapp v. Nelson

• Court: Colorado Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MAXWELL, J.
• Citation: Knapp v. Nelson, 41 Colo. 447, 92 P. 912 (Colo. 1907)
• Decision Date: 02 December 1907
• Parties: KNAPP et al. v. NELSON.

92 P. 912

41 Colo. 447

KNAPP et al. v. NELSON.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December 2, 1907

Appeal from District Court, Conejos County; Chas. C. Holbrook Judge.

Action by Louis Nelson against Fordyce M. Knapp and another to quiet title to land. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jesse Stephenson, for appellants.

Lewis S. Riley, for appellee.

MAXWELL J.

Action by appellee to quiet title to a quarter section of land in Conejos county. Trial to the court without a jury. The court found: That in the month of May, A. D. 1900, Charles A Johnson sold the N.W. 1/4 of section 8, in township 3l N., of range 9 E., of the New Mexico principal meridian, in the county of Conejos, state of Colorado, the land here in controversy, to these defendants, and one of the defendants drew his check on the bank in Monte Vista, Colo., for the amount of the purchase price, and by agreement of the parties the check and deed were left in the possession of George A Willis, the deed to be recorded, abstract of title acquired a clear title appearing therefrom, the purchase price, less the taxes, to be forwarded to the grantor. Mr. Willis, the custodian of the deed and check, and in fact escrow holder, had the deed recorded and presented the check for payment, which payment was refused at the instance of the drawer of the check. Such check was never paid, and no part of the purchase money for such land was ever paid by the defendants or either of them, and there is still no offer on the part of the defendants to pay for such land, and the deed has never been delivered and no consideration therefor has ever passed. That the plaintiff has since purchased and become the owner of the land in question. That at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff was and has continued in the possession of said land, and is entitled to have his title to the same quieted. Wherefore the court finds the issues generally for the plaintiff. A decree was rendered in favor of appellee in accordance with the foregoing findings. The findings of the court and the rendition of the judgment are assigned for error.

Upon conflicting evidence, with abundant evidence to sustain the findings, the issues of fact presented by the pleadings were resolved in favor of plaintiff, and we are bound thereby. It appears from the findings of the court, and the evidence in support thereof, that the deed under which appellants...