Selfridge v. Leonard-Heffner Machinery Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1911
• Citation: 51 Colo. 314,117 P. 158
• Parties: SELFRIDGE et al. v. LEONARD-HEFFNER MACHINERY CO.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

117 P. 158

51 Colo. 314

SELFRIDGE et al. v. LEONARD-HEFFNER MACHINERY CO.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 3, 1911

Appeal from District Court, Boulder County; James E. Garrigues Judge.

Action by the Leonard-Heffner Machinery Company against A. M Selfridge and another, partners as Selfridge & Mann. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Montgomery & Ingram (Elizabeth M. Brown, of counsel), for appellants.

John R Wolff, for appellee.

WHITE J.

Appellee as plaintiff in the court below, sued appellants, as defendants, to foreclose a mechanic's lien upon a certain mill site, and a lode mining claim, situated in Boulder county. The lien claimed was for the purchase price of machinery, materials, supplies, and equipment used in the construction of a water power plant and air compressor. The principal defense interposed was set forth in a cross-complaint, wherein it was alleged that defendants were substantially damaged, in that the power plant and air compressor were not constructed according to agreement, and that the materials and equipment furnished and used therein were not of the kind, quality and efficiency agreed upon by the parties. A jury was called, but during the taking of testimony, or at the close of the evidence, was discharged, and the court thereafter made special findings of fact in favor of plaintiff and declared 'that the allegations of defendants' answer are not sustained by the evidence; that the material allegations of the complaint are true'--and gave judgment accordingly establishing the lien on the mill site. From the judgment and decree, the defendants prosecute this appeal. Upon the material issues of the case, the evidence was conflicting. Appellants, therefore, contend that the action of the court in withdrawing the case from the consideration of the jury, constitutes reversible error.

In a law case, if there is evidence which tends to establish the plaintiff's cause of action and the defendant's defense, sufficient, if uncontroverted, to sustain the allegations of each party, it is error for the court to withdraw the case from the consideration of the jury, or to direct a verdict therein. In such cases it is not for the court to determine or pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, as that duty rests solely upon the jury.

This rule, however, does not apply in equity cases. Neither party is entitled to a jury trial therein as a matter of right. The court upon its own motion, may, in such cases, invoke the aid of a jury in determining specific questions of fact; and it may, before those questions are so determined, or afterwards dispense with the jury, or disregard its report and make its own findings of fact. Peck et al. v. Farnham, 24 Colo. 141, 49 P. 364; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 21 Colo. 181, 183, 40 P. 358; Saint v. Guerrerio, 17 Colo. 448, 30 P. 335, 31 Am.St.Rep. 320; Kirtley v. Marshall S. M. Co., 8 Colo. 279, 6...