Randolph v. Helps
| Decision Date | 26 February 1886 |
| Citation | 10 P. 245,9 Colo. 29 |
| Parties | RANDOLPH and another, Adm'r, etc., v. HELPS and others. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court Boulder county.
The complaint alleges that on October 6, 1881, William Stimson was the owner in fee of S.W. 1/4, section 21, township 1 S range 70 W., in the county of Boulder, Colorado; that on said day he leased the same to the defendants for the purpose of mining for coal, and defendants took possession of the same that by the terms of the lease it was provided that if said Stimson should sell the leased premises during the term of the lease, the said Stimson should pay to the defendants the value of all improvements placed upon said premises, and that the defendants should deliver up said premises to said Stimson or his vendee, and that the term of the lease should then terminate; that said Stimson sold the premises leased June 7, 1882, to the plaintiff; that he immediately gave notice thereof to the defendants, and offered to make the appraisement called for by the terms of the lease, and to pay to defendants the value of the improvements made by them that the defendants refused to receive the value of their improvements and refused to surrender up the possession of the premises, either to Stimson or to the plaintiff, his grantee; that the value of his improvements is $200; that the said Stimson and the plaintiff are willing and offer to pay for the same; that both Stimson and the plaintiff have demanded, in writing, of the defendants, the possession of the said premises, but defendants refuse to deliver possession of the same, and unlawfully hold over, contrary to the statute; that the use and occupation of the said premises is of the monthly value of $100; that plaintiff is damaged by the detention $100 per month. Plaintiff prays for judgment for the restitution of the premises, for $2,000 for use and occupation thereof, for damages, and for costs of suit. The answer admits the ownership of Stimson, and the leasing of the premises as alleged in the complaint; admits that defendants took possession of the same, and alleges that the lease was in writing; denies that they ever entered into a lease with a provision for a forfeiture in case the lessor should sell the premises, or into any lease containing the stipulations as alleged by the plaintiff; that the term of existence of said lease was not contingent on the sale of the premises by the lessor, and that no sale authorized the plaintiff to obtain possession of the premises, and the lease was never so understood by the parties thereto. * * * Replication by the plaintiff. Trial to the court, and judgment of nonsuit.
R. H. Whitely, Wright & Criffin and R. D. Thompson for plaintiffs in error.
G. Berkley, for defendants in error.
The complaint alleges 'that by the terms of the lease it was provided that, if Stimson should sell the leased premises during the term of the lease, the said Stimson should pay to the defendants the value of all improvements placed upon the premises, and that the defendants should deliver up the premises to Stimson, or his vendee, and that the term of the lease should then terminate.' The only provision of the lease pertaining to this issue is as follows:
'And it is further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Redding
...negotiations are merged in and superseded by the written instrument, and it becomes the evidence of the agreement. Randolph v. Helps, 9 Colo. 29, 10 P. 245; v. Magnon, 12 Colo.App. 137, 54 P. 907; Flick v. Hahn's Co., 16 Colo.App. 485, 66 P. 453; Oil Co. v. Fairbanks Co., 19 Colo.App. 142, ......
-
In re Ivenux, Inc.
...evidence is not admissible, either to contradict, add to, subtract from, or vary the terms of a written instrument." Randolph v. Helps, 9 Colo. 29, 10 P. 245, 247 (1886); see also Magnetic Copy Services, Inc. v. Seismic Specialists, Inc. 805 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Colo.Ct.App.1990) ("Although par......
-
McCaffrey v. Mitchell, 13536.
...the validity of the alleged parol conditional agreement as to the payment of this note. He cites, among other cases, Randolph v. Helps, 9 Colo. 29, 10 P. 245, Morgan v. Howard Realty Co., 68 Colo. 414, 191 P. 114, as holding that a written contract may not be varied by parol, but the cases ......
-
Tarr v. Hicks
...essence of the contract, and falls within no exception permitting variation by parol. 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 958, p. 889; Randolph v. Helps, 9 Colo. 29, 10 P. 245; Collins v. Shaffer, 66 Colo. 84, 179 P. In Collins v. Shaffer, 66 Colo. 84, 179 P. 152, this court said: '* * * The contract re......