Schwartz' Estate v. Silvey, 14187.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | 14187. |
| Parties | SCHWARTZ' ESTATE v. SILVEY. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1937.
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Otto Bock Judge.
Action by Leta M. Silvey against the Estate of Max Schwartz deceased Martyn Schwartz, administrator. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Blount & Silverstein, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Earle F. Wingren and William H. Scofield, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
This cause is here on writ of error to the district court of the city and county of Denver to review a judgment of that court allowing a claim as of the fifth class in favor of Leta M Silvey, against the estate of Max Schwartz, deceased. The claim is for the value of certain diamonds alleged to have been the subject of a bailment by Mrs. Silvey to the deceased, Max Schwartz, during his lifetime. The assignments of error raise the questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claim, the statute of limitations and laches. In establishing such a claim three elements are involved: (a) Was there a bailment? (b) Was the subject of the bailment returned? (c) If the first proposition be determined in the affirmative and the second in the negative what was the value of the subject of the bailment?
The evidence in support of the claim was substantially as follows: For a number of years prior to 1927 Mrs. Silvey had operated various hotels belonging to the deceased and had been rather closely associated with him in a business way in these operations; that in 1927 she was operating a hotel in Denver known as the Belvedere; that Mr. Schwartz was frequently at this hotel; that he often took the moneys received in the course of its operation to the bank and that he and Mrs. Silvey counseled together frequently. A witness, Rita M. Stanley, testified in effect that she was employed as clerk at the Belvedere Hotel; that in October of 1927 she was working on the desk at the hotel and that Mrs. Silvey was preparing to go downtown to keep an appointment; that Mr. Schwartz came in and met her at the desk; that he stated to her in substance: She further testified that thereupon Mrs. Silvey took off her earrings, a solitaire diamond, and another ring with two diamonds and two sapphires and gave them to him stating, 'I want a receipt.' Thereupon Schwartz picked up a slip of blue paper and wrote something on it. Witness then was shown Exhibit A, and testified that that was the paper, and that the writing on the face of it was placed there at the time by Mr. Schwartz. It is substantially as follows: The witness further testified that a few days later Mr. Schwartz came into the hotel and requested that Mrs. Silvey give him the rest of her diamonds; that on this occasion she stated to him that she would not have time to get them; that they were locked in her trunk; that two or three days after this second conversation she was called down to the desk by Mrs. Silvey and while there saw Mrs. Silvey deliver some other jewels to Mr. Schwartz which he placed in a long paper envelope and that Mrs. Silvey stated on this occasion that she wanted a receipt and requested that he put it on the one paper. Mr. Schwartz thereupon wrote on the back of the blue paper, Exhibit A, as follows: This writing appears on the back of Exhibit A, which was admitted in evidence without objection on the part of the administrator.
Witness Schwab was called as an expert by Mrs. Silvey to prove the value of the diamonds. This witness stated that Mr. Schwartz in October, 1927, at the Belvedere Hotel, showed him the jewelry which he had received from Mrs. Silvey, with the exception of the bracelet listed on the back of the exhibit which he did not see; that he made an examination of the diamonds with a magnifying glass which he carried. He described the diamonds which he examined and testified as to their value. Another witness, Lowenheim, who was in the jewelry and loan business and whose qualifications as an expert were not questioned, from the description of the stones given by Mr. Schwab, testified as to their value. Mrs Zenia Smith testified that she had known Mrs. Silvey for fifteen or sixteen years and had been her close friend; that she had on occasions borrowed money from her; that in 1934 she was on a deal with Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gossard v. Gossard
...is, the statute does not begin to run until after the demand. Bowes v. Cannon, 50 Colo. 262, 116 P. 336, 339; Schwartz' Estate v. Silvey, 101 Colo. 336, 73 P.2d 994, 996.5 But, where a demand is a condition precedent to the right to bring an action, and the time of such demand is within the......
-
Tubbs v. Hilliard
...was president of the Garfield Industrial Bank. Schwartz was in the jewelry business, and engaged also in loaning money. Schwartz v. Silvey, 101 Colo. 336, 73 P.2d 994. was a great-grandson of the late Henry Bolthoff, and a brother of Newell who was plaintiff in error in the case of Newell v......
-
Wasden v. Coltharp
...no demand had been made for the return of the ring until about 60 days before suit was filed. The case of Schwartz' Estate v. Silvey, 101 Colo. 336, 73 P.2d 994 (1937), cited by the plaintiff in his brief is to the same The trial court having found as a fact in its memorandum decision that ......
-
In re Estate of Krotiuk
...refused. He asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether he made such a demand before 1997. See Schwartz' Estate v. Silvey, 101 Colo. 336, 73 P.2d 994 (1937); Westerman v. Rogers, supra. Again, we Actions of replevin or for taking, detaining, or converting goods or chattel......
-
The Effect of Relational Intimacy on Estate Claims
...Bodenheimer v. Executors of Bodenheimer, 35 La. Ann. 1005 (1883). 38. Clarke, supra, note 4 at 1077. See also, Schwartz' Estate v. Silvey, 73 P.2d 994, 996 (Colo. 1937); Butler v. Phillips, 88 Pac. 480 (Colo. 1907). 39. Josephs' Estate, supra, note 7 at 866. 40. Ballou, supra, note 31. Colu......