Minchew v. West

• Decision Date: 02 November 1925
• Docket Number: 10984.
• Citation: Minchew v. West, 78 Colo. 254, 241 P. 541 (Colo. 1925)
• Parties: MINCHEW v. WEST.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

241 P. 541

78 Colo. 254

MINCHEW v. WEST.

No. 10984.

Supreme Court of Colorado

November 2, 1925

Department 1.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.

Action by Henry O. West against Augustus P. Minchew. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Danforth & Kavanagh, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Dines Dines & Holme, Paul P. Prosser, and Robert E. More, all of Denver, for defendant in error.

ADAMS J.

West plaintiff in the trial court and now defendant in error, got judgment for $20,910 against Minchew for the conversion of certain corporate stock. Minchew brings error. On trial to the court, it found the issues in favor of the plaintiff on his two causes of action, and also found:

'That there was a conversion of the stock, as charged by the plaintiff, in each cause of action; that the stock so converted was owned by the plaintiff, and that the defendant had no right, title, or interest therein; that the par value of the stock, on the date of the conversion, and the market value thereof, and the price at which the stock was selling at that time, was $10 a share; that the number of shares so converted was 2,091, and that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to a judgment in the sum of $20,910; the interest thereon having been waived by the plaintiff in the suit.'

The parties will be hereafter referred to in accordance with their alignment in the trial court.

The defendant says that the findings are manifestly against the weight of the evidence, but the record does not sustain this contention. He also points to the fact that some of the evidence is documentary, which is true, but, as the essential documentary evidence tends largely to add support to the findings as to the conversion, defendant's argument is not aided by reference to the exception of documentary evidence from the usual presumption in favor of the findings of the trial court. There is nothing to bring this case within any exception to the general rule that when the evidence is conflicting, the findings of fact by the trial court will not be disturbed.

The corporate stock that the court found the plaintiff owned and that defendant had converted to his own use was in two blocks, one represented by a certificate for 1150 shares and the other by a certificate for 941 shares. Defendant contends that there could be no conversion of the latter because plaintiff had not indorsed nor assigned the certificate, and that therefore it could not be transferred to any one. The answer to this is that defendant converted it without any such assignment. He was an officer of the company; he took the certificate, and then had the stub of the certificate marked, 'Canceled in office,' and 'Not issued.' When so canceled, defendant had the stock issued to another person, and finally to his own sister. The plaintiff was wholly deprived of its use. There was a distinct, unauthorized act of dominion or...