Seventh Day Adventist Ass'n of Colorado v. Underwood, 13674.

Docket Nº13674.
Citation99 Colo. 139, 60 P.2d 929
Case DateJuly 20, 1936
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

60 P.2d 929

99 Colo. 139

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST ASS'N OF COLORADO et al.
v.
UNDERWOOD.

No. 13674.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 20, 1936


Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1936.

In Department.

Error to District Court, Pueblo County; William B. Stewart, Judge.

Action by Hazel Boden Underwood against the Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado and others. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Joseph J. Walsh. Donald F. Clifford, and Joseph J. Cella, Jr., all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

L. E. Langdon and John T. Barbrick, both of Pueblo, for defendant in error.

[99 Colo. 140] HILLIARD, Justice.

In an action to recover real property, defendant in error prevailed Before a jury and had judgment against plaintiff in error the Seventh Day Adventist Association. The other plaintiffs in error were only nominal defendants at trial and are without interest here. It is claimed (1) that the evidence did not warrant the judgment, and (2) that error obtained in relation to the qualifications of certain of the jurors chosen to try the case.

It appears that October 13, 1932, one Myrtle Boden died intestate, leaving defendant in error as her sole heir; that in the latter part of 1929, the deceased signed and acknowledged two deeds (in each instance called a 'Gift Deed') purporting to convey to the adventist association certain parcels of real estate, one in El Paso county, the other in Pueblo county. Both instruments were recorded October 21, 1932.

Defendant in error alleged that when the deeds were executed, her mother was so insane and distracted in her mind that she was incompetent to execute, acknowledge or deliver said conveyances; and that there had not been delivery. There was denial. The jury found generally for defendant in error, and specifically that at the time of the execution of the deeds Myrtle Boden was not of sufficiently sound mind to 'understand the effect and consequences of her act in so doing.'

1. The witnesses, professional and lay, none challenged as to qualifications or respectability, examined in behalf of the opposing interests, were in disagreement as to the mental capacity of Mrs. Boden. The jury, guided by a charge to which plaintiffs in error did not object, and aided by argument [60 P.2d 930] of counsel, weighed the conflicting views of the witnesses with the result already indicated. On motions made Before the case was submitted to the jury, and on a motion for a new trial interposed [99 Colo. 141] after the verdict, the trial court ruled...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • People v. Pena-Rodriguez, No. 11CA0034.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 8, 2012
    ...specific questions about the subject of the misrepresentation during voir dire. See Seventh Day Adventist Ass'n of Colorado v. Underwood, 99 Colo. 139, 141–42, 60 P.2d 929, 930 (1936) (refusing to address in a motion for new trial the assertion that potentially biased jurors prevented a fai......
  • Robinson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 13786.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 27, 1936
    ...owner the proceeds of ore delivered for treatment. The plain language of the section forbids the construction contended for by Robinson. [60 P.2d 929] Moreover, any such construction would bring the section into conflict with section 12 of article 2 of the State Constitution relating to imp......
2 cases
  • People v. Pena-Rodriguez, No. 11CA0034.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 8, 2012
    ...specific questions about the subject of the misrepresentation during voir dire. See Seventh Day Adventist Ass'n of Colorado v. Underwood, 99 Colo. 139, 141–42, 60 P.2d 929, 930 (1936) (refusing to address in a motion for new trial the assertion that potentially biased jurors prevented a fai......
  • Robinson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 13786.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 27, 1936
    ...owner the proceeds of ore delivered for treatment. The plain language of the section forbids the construction contended for by Robinson. [60 P.2d 929] Moreover, any such construction would bring the section into conflict with section 12 of article 2 of the State Constitution relating to imp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT