Peterson v. Rawalt

• Decision Date: 17 September 1934
• Docket Number: 13275.
• Citation: 95 Colo. 368,36 P.2d 465
• Parties: PETERSON v. RAWALT et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

36 P.2d 465

95 Colo. 368

PETERSON v. RAWALT et al.

No. 13275.

Supreme Court of Colorado

September 17, 1934

In Department.

Error to District Court, Montrose County; George W. Bruce, Judge.

Action by Cora K. Rawalt against Peter Peterson, individually and doing business under the firm name and style of the Western Slope Democrat, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Peterson brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Paul L. Littler and Bryant & Stubbs, all of Montrose, for plaintiff in error.

Moynihan Hughes & Knous, of Montrose, for defendants in error.

BOUCK Justice.

The plaintiff in error, Peter Peterson, was defendant in the district court, where judgment went against him in favor of the defendant in error Cora K. Rawalt, plaintiff below. The jury's verdict was for $100; but the trial court, on motion of Mrs. Rawalt, set the verdict aside and entered judgment for the full amount claimed by her, something over $600. Peterson is here asking a reversal.

While the judgment under review merely sustains a claim for wages the background introduced into the litigation discloses a number of complications properly considered in connection with the assignments of error.

Mrs Rawalt's husband, who was made a party defendant after the action against Peterson was commenced, and who is merely a nominal party to the present proceedings in error, not being concerned in the judgment, had been the owner, publisher, and editor of several country newspapers. The vicissitudes of this business led to financial straits. Rawalt found it necessary to mortgage his newspaper plants in favor of one Dorring. In an effort to rid himself of that mortgage and rehabilitate his enterprise, he sought a reorganization of his affairs by increasing the loans he had theretofore negotiated from the plaintiff in error Peterson, who accondingly in September of 1928 satisfied the Dorring mortgage and received from Rawalt a similar incumbrance for $3,200 as security for some or all of the loans. In 1930 Rawalt's finances had come to such a pass that he was unable to continue his publications on his own responsibility. He and Peterson both deemed it advisable to ship the mortgaged property to Montrose and establish a newspaper there. The resulting newspaper was 'The Western Slope Democrat.' Rawalt claimed that Peterson took over the mortgaged property as its owner upon its transfer to Montrose. Peterson acquired in his own name, and added to the plant, a typesetting machine costing nearly $3,300. Rawalt contended that Peterson thenceforth conducted the business as his, with Rawalt as editor and manager. Peterson claimed, on the other hand, that there was no change in the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, that the newspaper was still Rawalt's, and that Peterson's interest was solely the interest of a mortgagee desiring to have the indebtedness due him paid. Peterson explained various payments made by him for supplies, labor, and rent of a building as expenditures which he made singly for the purpose of preserving his security. Undoubtedly Rawalt constantly harbored the hope that he would eventually realize on what he called his equity; yet the testimony in the record might reasonably justify the inference that he had definitely transferred the mortgaged property to Peterson, and had abandoned all expectation of getting anything out of the assets except perhaps by way of some miraculous largess on the part of the mortgagee, and as pure gratuity. Rawalt's reverses made it clearly impossible for him to pay even the ordinary and current expenses. The roseate outlook which he had kept for nearly half a century apparently became hopelessly dimmed. Moreover, Peterson was expressly heralded in the newly established newspaper as its owner.

Mrs. Rawalt's work for the newspaper is shown to have included all the machine work, much of the 'ad' and job work, all cylinder press feeding, and some job press feeding. It averaged much more than the usual number of working hours, and seems to have been entirely effective and satisfactory from every standpoint. Mrs. Rawalt and her husband both testified that Peterson promised her wages at $20 per week, about half the going wages for such work. Peterson denied it, saying the agreement was for payment of those wages out of the income alone.

There was no serious dispute as to the length of time Mrs. Rawalt worked; the controversy being on the respective contentions just mentioned. If Mrs. Rawalt proved her case, Peterson was the responsible operator of the Western Slope Democrat whether as absolute owner or not, and Mrs. Rawalt was not required to look to the business income for her wages, then she would be entitled to recover from 'Peterson something like the sum she claimed. If she did not prove her case, she...