Linley v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 30 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24692,24692 |
| Citation | 477 P.2d 453,173 Colo. 239 |
| Parties | Lisbeth K. LINLEY, Petitioner, v. R. Courtney HANSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Akolt, Shepherd, Dick & Rovira, Lael S. DeMuth, Mitchell Benedict III, Denver, for petitioner.
Robert W. Caddes, Denver, for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari was granted in this case to review the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Hanson v. Linley, announced February 3, 1970, in Colo.App., 470 P.2d 78.
The limited question in this review is whether the Court of Appeals ignored any principles of law laid down in prior decisions of this court. As applied to the facts in this case, we hold that it did.
The controversy between the parties arose in connection with the purchase and sale of a ranch. The real estate transaction was in writing and not in dispute, but an alleged sale of some hay, propane gas and five horses was orally contracted between the parties. (See Hanson v. Linley, Supra, for more detailed facts.)
Suit was brought by Hanson against Linley for the cost of the hay, propane and the horses. Linley counterclaimed for reimbursement for the cost of feeding the horses, which she denied purchasing.
Upon trial to the court on sharply conflicting evidence, the trial court entered findings that the hay and propane had been consumed and there was an implied obligation to pay for them. In separate findings the court found and concluded that there was an oral contract; that it was for chattels within the terms of the Statute of Frauds (C.R.S.1963, 59--1--12(2)(a); that the sale was for more than $50; that there was no written memorandum of such contract subscribed by the parties; that the defendant (Linley) Did not accept and receive Any of the five horses; that the contract was void under the Statute of Frauds.
Judgment was entered for Hanson for the sum representing the value of hay and propane consumed and the complaint was dismissed as to the claim for the purchase price of the horses. Judgment for Linley for cost of feeding the horses was entered on the counterclaim.
Writ of error was sued out in this court to the judgment of dismissal against Hanson and error also was assigned to the judgment on the counterclaim, and the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals,
The Court of Appeals in announcing its decision reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of Hanson for the full purchase price claimed by him for the horses and to vacate the judgment on Linley's counterclaim. In doing so the Court of Appeals failed to comply with and acted contrary to the law as announced by this court.
The question of acceptance as it relates to the Statute of Frauds has been held by this court to be a question of fact. Howse v. Crumb, 143 Colo. 90, 352 P.2d 285. In that case the trial court had failed to make a finding regarding acceptance. The case was remanded by the Supreme Court to the trial court for entry of such finding. The remand was necessary because the Supreme Court was convinced that delivery of the merchandise was not tantamount to acceptance as a matter of law.
In construing the Statute of Frauds provision dealing with the question of acceptance, the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer
...in his own defense. It is the trial court, not the appellate court who should conduct this factual inquiry. Linley v. Hanson, 173 Colo. 239, 242, 477 P.2d 453, 454 (1970) ("The trial court and not an appellate court is the trier of fact."); see also Swanson, 572 F.2d at 526 ("Because nonpat......
-
Lopata's Estate, In re
...knowledgeable waiver after full disclosure. These findings are supported by the record and are binding on this court. Linley v. Hanson, 173 Colo. 239, 477 P.2d 453 (1970). Therefore, the trial court did not err in enforcing the antenuptial The appellant next argues that placing the burden o......
-
Gude v. City of Lakewood, 80SA81
...is supported by the record and so must be sustained. E. g., Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979); Linley v. Hanson, 173 Colo. 239, 477 P.2d 453 (1970). IV. In their third claim for relief the plaintiffs seek to obtain a declaratory judgment and to enjoin the city from spending ......
-
Hargreaves v. Skrbina, 79CA0244
...Since there is evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court they will not be disturbed on appeal. Linley v. Hanson, 173 Colo. 239, 477 P.2d 453 (1970). IV Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in failing to award them attorneys' fees. We Plaintiffs recognize tha......