Knuppel v. Moreland
| Decision Date | 23 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19392,19392 |
| Parties | Alvin L. KNUPPEL, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stanley MORELAND and C. M. Moreland, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Bruce Ownbey, Norman E. Struempler, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Alden T. Hill, Ralph H. Coyte, Fort Collins, for defendants in error.
By the first count Knuppel sought to recover the sum of $1,500 alleged to be the balance due on the sale of certain equipment, and by a second count alleged that the defendants owed $619 for certain labor in loading and hauling iron. At the time the complaint was filed, attachment proceedings were inaugurated, pursuant to which the Sheriff seized the property which was the subject of the alleged sale described in the first count.
Morelands by their answer put in issue the allegations of the first count, admitted that they owed $160 on the second count, but averred that said sum so owing should be set off against a greater sum owing from Knuppel to the Morelands. Their counter-claims were based (1) upon an indebtedness of $459.50, said to be owing for certain personal property sold to Knuppel, and for $25 cash alleged to have been advanced to Knuppel, and (2) upon an obligation in the sum of $2,000 arising from the rental by the Morelands to the plaintiff of a trailer. The Morelands also traversed the attachment.
Morelands' counterclaims were denied by Knuppel. On these issues the case proceeded to trial to the court. At the conclusion of the evidence the court made oral findings and entered judgment against Knuppel on his claims and in favor of the Morelands in the sum of $484.50, the amount sought to be recovered in their first counterclaim, and against the Morelands on their second counterclaim.
Believing himself to be prejudicially aggrieved, Knuppel seeks reversal on three grounds, only one of which needs to be discussed and decided.
In support of his claim, Knuppel introduced in evidence an instrument consisting of three parts:
1. A 'Statement of Transaction' between Knuppel and the Morelands showing a total cash selling price of the equipment in the sum of $3,000.00 and a credit of $1,500.00. This section of the agreement shows a balance due of $1,500.00 together with certain charges, making a total balance of $1,800.00 to be paid in twenty-four monthly payments of $75.00. According to the instrument, the first payment was to be made on May 15, 1959.
2. The second section of this instrument is a promissory note for $1,800.00 executed by the Morelands, in which they agree to pay in terms and figures substantially the same as those appearing in the 'Statement of Transaction.' This note states that it is secured by a chattel mortgage.
3. The third section of the instrument is the chattel mortgage given to secure the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monus v. Colorado Baseball 1993, Inc.
...that parol evidence which would vary or contradict the terms of the written agreement would not be admissible. See Knuppel v. Moreland, 366 P.2d 136, 138 (Colo.1961). The alleged parking agreement would contradict the written agreement. The written agreement attached no strings to the purch......
-
Luby v. Jefferson County Bank of Lakewood
...of them all. Will v. Trumpelman, 171 S.W.2d 732 (Mo.App.); Williams v. Long, 106 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Civ.App.). The cases of Knuppel v. Moreland, 148 Colo. 242, 366 P.2d 136; Robbins v. Passaic National Bank & Trust Co., 109 N.J.L. 250, 160 A. 418; Scottsbluff National Bank v. Blue J. Feeds, In......
-
Sentinel Acceptance Corp. v. Colgate
...terms of a written agreement, and that the rule applies to sales transactions as well as to other types of contracts. Knupple v. Moreland, 148 Colo. 242, 366 P.2d 136; Alley v. McMath, 140 Colo. 600, 346 P.2d 304. Plaintiff's objection at the trial was well taken. the trial court should hav......
-
Blue Dolphin Investments, Ltd. v. Kane, 83CA1118
...of a contemporaneous oral agreement is inadmissible to vary or contradict the terms of an integrated contract. See Knuppel v. Moreland, 148 Colo. 242, 366 P.2d 136 (1961); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1981). Here, it is undisputed that the written contract is an unambiguous, con......