Rosenthal v. Whitehead, No. 21055
| Docket Nº | No. 21055 |
| Citation | 413 P.2d 909, 159 Colo. 565 |
| Case Date | April 18, 1966 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 909
v.
William C. WHITEHEAD, Defendant in Error.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1966.
[159 Colo. 567]
Page 910
Paul Snyder, Castle Rock, for plaintiff in error.Hiester, Tanner & Clanaham, Charles B. Lindley, Denver, for defendant in error.
McWILLIAMS, Justice.
This writ of error presents a dispute between Joe Rosenthal and William Whitehead with reference to the ownership and
Page 911
right to possession of a certain Kramer diesel tractor.Succinctly stated, the controversy stems from the fact that the tractor in question was purportedly pledged to Whitehead by one Riordan at a time when there was a chattel mortgage of record on the tractor in favor of Rosenthal.
Riordan and his associate, Morrison, obtained a personal loan of some $1,300 from Whitehead, an Arapahoe County rancher, and in return therefor executed and delivered to Whitehead three promissory notes totaling $1,500. It was as security for the repayment of these three notes that Riordan and Morrison purportedly pledged the tractor to Whitehead. When Riordan and Morrison defaulted in the payment of these three notes, Whitehead brought an action in foreclosure against them, seeking not only a money judgment but also an order that the 'pledged' tractor be sold by the sheriff at public sale with the proceeds of such sale to be then [159 Colo. 568] applied on the indebtedness of Riordan and Morrison to him. Default judgment was duly rendered against Riordan and Morrison in favor of Whitehead and the sheriff was directed to sell the tractor at public sale.
Thereafter, Rosenthal, apparently unaware of Whitehead's foreclosure proceeding, brought an action in conversion against Whitehead, alleging that he (Rosenthal) was the owner of the tractor and entitled to the possession thereof, and that Whitehead had converted the same to his own use without any 'right or justification.' Rosenthal sought damages in the sum of some $4,800.
Upon becoming aware of the pending foreclosure action theretofore brought by Whitehead, Rosenthal sought and obtained permission to intervene in that proceeding. Without objection the issues framed by the complaint in intervention and the answer thereto were consolidated for the purposes of trial with the conversion suit. A trial to the court culminated in a total victory for Whitehead, to the end that the trial court found in favor of Whitehead and against Rosenthal both as to the latter's conversion suit and his complaint in intervention. Rosenthal now seeks reversal of these adverse judgments.
In essence, the trial court's findings were that Riordan and his running mate, Morrison, were agents for Rosenthal with the authority to 'sell or mortgage' the tractor to Whitehead, and that under these circumstances Rosenthal's chattel mortgage was not valid and enforceable against Whitehead as concerns the tractor then in his possession.
It is at once to be noted that though the trial court found that Riordan and Morrison were agents for Rosenthal with either the actual or apparent authority to 'sell or mortgage' the tractor, there was No finding that Riordan and Morrison had any authority, be it express or implied, to Pledge the tractor. As we read the record, it is very doubtful that there is competent evidence to support the finding that Riordan and Morrison were agents for Rosenthal with either the express or implied [159 Colo. 569] authority to 'sell or mortgage' the tractor. Be that as it may, we find absolutely nothing, however, which would even remotely tend to indicate that Riordan and Morrison had any authority whatsoever to Pledge the tractor as security for the repayment of their personal loan from Whitehead.
The general rule is that an agent has the authority to pledge his principal's property only where such authority is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes, No. 94SC595
...defined as a person who enters or occupies property of another for the purpose of transacting business with the landowner. Id. at 594, 413 P.2d at 909; Mathias v. Denver Union Terminal Ry., 137 Colo. 224, 228, 323 P.2d 624, 626 (1958); Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 11, 76 P.2d 43......
-
General Electric Credit Corp. v. RA Heintz Const. Co., Civ. No. 67-379.
...all rights to the 71's, that Fincham lost all rights to the proceeds of the sale of the collateral, the 65's. Rosenthal v. Whitehead, 159 Colo. 565, 413 P.2d 909, 912 (1966), supports the view that legal title passed to Ingersoll on the breach of the mortgage, but it does not support the ar......
-
Weil v. Smith, No. 45649
...premises for his own convenience or to advance his own interest, pursuant to the permission or consent of the owner. * * *' (pp. 594, 595, 413 P.2d 909.) 'An invitee is one who comes upon the premises of another to transact business in which the parties are mutually interested. * * *' (p. 5......
-
Rosenthal v. Whitehead, No. 22711
...over a tractor has been before this Court. For the general background out of which this controversy arose, see Rosenthal v. Whitehead, 159 Colo. 565, 413 P.2d 909. In that case we determined as a matter of law that Whitehead did convert to his own use the tractor in question, and the case w......
-
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes, No. 94SC595
...defined as a person who enters or occupies property of another for the purpose of transacting business with the landowner. Id. at 594, 413 P.2d at 909; Mathias v. Denver Union Terminal Ry., 137 Colo. 224, 228, 323 P.2d 624, 626 (1958); Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 11, 76 P.2d 43......
-
General Electric Credit Corp. v. RA Heintz Const. Co., Civ. No. 67-379.
...all rights to the 71's, that Fincham lost all rights to the proceeds of the sale of the collateral, the 65's. Rosenthal v. Whitehead, 159 Colo. 565, 413 P.2d 909, 912 (1966), supports the view that legal title passed to Ingersoll on the breach of the mortgage, but it does not support the ar......
-
Weil v. Smith, No. 45649
...premises for his own convenience or to advance his own interest, pursuant to the permission or consent of the owner. * * *' (pp. 594, 595, 413 P.2d 909.) 'An invitee is one who comes upon the premises of another to transact business in which the parties are mutually interested. * * *' (p. 5......
-
Rosenthal v. Whitehead, No. 22711
...over a tractor has been before this Court. For the general background out of which this controversy arose, see Rosenthal v. Whitehead, 159 Colo. 565, 413 P.2d 909. In that case we determined as a matter of law that Whitehead did convert to his own use the tractor in question, and the case w......