Nix v. Art Neon Co., 14687.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 14687. |
| Parties | NIX et al. v. ART NEON CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1940.
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry A. Hicks Judge.
Action by the Art Neon Company against Forrest W. Nix and another to recover rent due for electric sign. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
Reversed with directions to dismiss.
Ireland & Ireland, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Adams & Rubright, of Denver, for defendant in error.
These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court and are hereinafter referred to as there. Plaintiff sued defendants on a written contract for an unpaid balance of $340 alleged to be due on rent for an electric sign. Defendants answered that plaintiff had violated its agreement to service said sign, hence they had paid in full. By way of cross complaint they set up certain payments, failure to service, and removal of the sign without their consent, and demanded judgment for $70 and costs. This they supported with a bill of particulars. The replication admitted payment of $20 and removal of the sign.
A jury was waived and the cause tried to the court which found for defendants for certain payments, plus $23.54 damages for failure to service, and gave plaintiff judgment for the balance, plus $42.97 attorneys' fees (15% as provided by the contract), a total of $329.43, with costs. To review that judgment defendants prosecute this writ, assigning nine errors, all included in the 6th, i. e., that the judgment is contrary to the evidence.
The court specifically found that plaintiff failed to service the sign, in violation of paragraph 'd' of its contract. That contract designates plaintiff as 'owner' and defendants as 'user'. Said paragraph 'd' provides that in case of failure to service or repair
The contract further provides that if the user 'discontinued business in said premises * * * all unpaid amounts to the end of this agreement, * * * shall be at once due and payable.' It bore date of September 22, 1937, and ran for thirty-six months.
The sign was installed about October 7, 1937. The principal defect in its operation was excessive consumption of current. Plaintiff was several times notified, orally and in writing to remedy the defect. It gave it some attention,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Eastport Steamship Corporation
..."The account was a single one; the payment was for the balance due as between the parties; * * *" 297 F. 60, 64. Cf. Nix v. Art Neon Co., 1940, 105 Colo. 562, 100 P.2d 165. Here, there was not a "single account" between the parties, nor did the Government's payment purport to establish a ba......
- Spirakoff v. Pluto Coal Min. Co.
-
Young Elec. Sign Co. v. Lynch
...this particular finding. The same is true as to the claimed error in receiving evidence of prior leases of the sign. In Nix v. Art Neon Co., 105 Colo. 562, 100 P.2d 165, the Colorado Supreme Court held, among other things, that a lessor of a sign may not neglect it for a substantial period ......