Matson & Mulhausen Const. Co. v. Boulevard Nat. Bank, s. 70--289
| Decision Date | 11 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 70--289,23877,s. 70--289 |
| Citation | 475 P.2d 356,28 Colo.App. 427 |
| Parties | MATSON & MULHAUSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a partnership, Plaintiff in Error. v. BOULEVARD NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Association, Defendant in Error. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
McCarthy & Reneau, Thomas, E. MaCarthy, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard Charles R. Frederickson, Denver, for defendant in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
This writ of error is directed to a judgment obtained by the Boulevard National Bank against Matson and Mulhausen Construction Company (Matson) in an action brought by the bank as an assignee of an account receivable from Matson.
In May of 1966, Matson was the general contractor on a school construction job. M & M Electric Company was the electrical subcontractor on the job. Matson was to receive payments from the school district as the work progressed and, on receipt of these payments, was to pay M & M for the portion of the electrical work which it had completed.
On May 9, 1966, the bank made a loan of $4,025 to M & M and received an assignment of the M & M account receivable from Matson. Before the loan was made, a bank officer called Matson on the telephone and verified the account. Matson said the electric company had an account receivable due from Matson in the nature of a progress payment in the amount of $4100, net after retainages, whih would be payable when the money was received from the school district. Later that day, a bank officer delivered a letter addressed to Matson:
'We wish to inform you by this letter that we have taken an account receivable in the amount of $4,923 as security for a loan to M & M Electric.
'Kindly make your check for payment payable to M & M Electric Company And boulevard National Bank.
'Please sign the enclosed copy as your acknowledgment of this letter.'
Matson signed the letter as requested. Below his signature the following statement appears:
'The Bank does understand that after retainages of fees the amount due M & M Electric will be approximately $4,100.00'
About three days later, M & M abandoned the job and later filed a petition in bankruptcy. M & M made no payments to the bank on the note. In its contract with Matson, M & M had agreed to do the electrical work for $42,678. Matson engaged a new subcontractor to do the work for a price of $43,000. At the time of its default, M & M had performed very little of its work, and 80% Of the progress payment assigned to the bank was for materials which M & M had delivered to the job site. These materials were not incorporated into the work but were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez By and Through Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...assignee of rights under a contract has no greater rights than those of his or her assignor. Matson & Mulhausen Construction Co. v. Boulevard National Bank, 28 Colo.App. 427, 475 P.2d 356 (1970). Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to no greater rights against Safeco than those provided to......
-
Farmers Acceptance Corp. v. DeLozier
...notified of the assignment. See McCormick v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., Colo., 487 P.2d 1333 (1971); Matson & Mulhausen Const. Co. v. Boulevard Nat'l. Bank, 28 Colo.App. 427, 475 P.2d 356 (1970); Denver United States Nat'l. Bank v. Asbell Bros. Const., 294 F.2d 289 (10th Cir. 1961); Associates......
-
Heinrichsdorff v. Raat, 81CA1250
...takes subject to all equities and defenses which could have been set up against the assignor. Matson & Mulhausen Construction Co. v. Boulevard National Bank, 28 Colo.App. 427, 475 P.2d 356 (1970). Here, the Bank's security interest in "accounts receivable" was valid only insofar as Raat had......