McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 13536.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | 13536. |
| Citation | 98 Colo. 467,57 P.2d 900 |
| Parties | McCAFFREY v. MITCHELL. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
For majority opinion, see 56 P.2d 926.
I concur in the judgment now entered, reversing the district court's judgment on the cross-errors of the defendant Mitchell and remanding the case for trial on his first defense. The latter, as I think, sufficiently presents the questions: (1) Of his being an accommodation maker; (2) of absence of consideration; and (3) of a conditional delivery of the $200 promissory note in question. The trial court will do well to keep constantly before it sections 16, 28, and 29 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, which is our Negotiable Instruments Law adopted in 1897. The sections appear in C.L. 1921 as sections 3833, 3845, and 3846, respectively. The language is plain. There is no need to undertake in this connection a reconciliation of this court's opinions in other cases, in many of which the facts were different and in some of which the express provisions of our statute seem not to have been considered. See 5 U.L.A. (1930); Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, Annotated (5th Ed. 1932).
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 13536.
-
McGuire v. Luckenbach
...Company, 85 Colo. 357, 276 P. 329; Oppegard v. Oppegard, 90 Colo. 483, 10 P.2d 333; McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 98 Colo. 467, 56 P.2d 926, 57 P.2d 900; Ball v. Wright, 118 Colo. 410, 195 P.2d 739; Denver Brewing Company v. Barets, 9 Colo.App. 341, 48 P. 834; Roberts v. Greig, 15 Colo.App. 378, 6......
-
Berta v. Rocchio
...be admissible in an action between the original parties to a contract or note, see McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 98 Colo. 467, 56 P.2d 926, 57 P.2d 900; Burenheide v. Wall, 131 Colo. 371, 281 P.2d 1000; Witherspoon v. Pusch, 141 Colo. 525, 349 P.2d 137; and Campbell v. Graham, 144 Colo. 532, 357 P......
-
Burenheide v. Wall, 17387
...instrument. The court allowed the testimony to be introduced, and under the authority of McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 98 Colo. 467, 56 P.2d 926, 57 P.2d 900, properly did so as the parol evidence in question did not tend to vary the terms of the written instrument, but went to the very question o......
-
Rule 51 INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
...Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Cateran Land & Live Stock Co., 73 Colo. 93, 213 P. 999 (1923); McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 98 Colo. 467, 56 P.2d 926, 57 P.2d 900 (1936). Trial court's failure to instruct jury on loss of future earning capacity was error. Evidence was presented that the plaintiff had p......