Simpson v. Nelson
| Citation | 208 P. 455,71 Colo. 490 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10190,10191. |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. NELSON. SIMPSON et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1922.
Error to District Court, Elbert County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.
Suits by Annie F. Simpson against Nels Nelson, and by the latter against the former and others. From judgment for defendant in the former, plaintiff brings error, and from a judgment for plaintiff in the latter, defendants bring error.
On rehearing. Judgments affirmed.
Henry & Ferguson, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Benjamin C. Hilliard and Joshua Grozier, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
The two cases above entitled have been considered together and will be determined with one opinion.
Annie F. Simpson, plaintiff in error, was the owner of 2,600 acres of land in Elbert county subject to an incumbrance of $3,500. In 1903 her husband, William Simpson, without any written authority from her, gave a lease and option on 320 acres of said land to the defendant in error, Nelson. The last renewal of said instrument expired December, 1910, but Nelson remained in possession, constantly demanded a deed, but was told the mortgage stood in the way, but would soon be removed, and that he then should have it. William Simpson died in 1917. Nelson continued to pay each year what plaintiff in error claims was rent, and he claims was interest, to D. Hardy Simpson, the son of William Simpson and Annie F. Simpson, plaintiff in error; and he, without however, written authority from his mother, gave receipts to Nelson for 'interest.'
In 1919 Mrs. Simpson served notice to quit upon Nelson and brought suit in forcible entry and detainer. He answered, claiming to be the equitable owner, and later brought suit upon the lease and option for specific performance. Both those suits were determined in his favor, and are here on error.
It is true, as Mrs. Simpson claims, that, since there was no written authority from her to her husband authorizing it, the lease and option was void under the statute of frauds. The fact that she was present and heard the oral contract which was afterwards consummated by the writing would amount to no more than oral authority from her to him, which would be void. So of verbal authority from Mrs. Simpson authorizing any ratification of the lease and option, and, of course, parol evidence was not admissible to vary the terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyer v. Karakehian, 95SC89
...a purchase option is a contract for the sale of an interest in land, it is required by statute to be in writing. Simpson v. Nelson, 71 Colo. 490, 491, 208 P. 455, 455-56 (1922). The Colorado Statute of Frauds Contracts for interests in land--must be written. Every contract for ... the sale ......
-
Boyd v. McElroy, 14371.
... ... such agreement.' ' 35 C.S.A. vol. 3, C. 71, § 10. 3 ... Ratification was apparent. Simpson v. Nelson, 71 ... Colo. 490, 208 P. 455. There is no contention that McElroy ... has not performed in full. 'So, ... [100 P.2d 626] ... though ... ...
-
Brammer v. Ellison, 16800
...authorized so to act; that she subsequently ratified such agency and, even if not originally bound, is estopped thereby. Simpson v. Nelson, 71 Colo. 490, 208 P. 455; Boyd v. McElroy, 105 Colo. 527, 100 P.2d As to the third contention, plaintiffs in error say that tender of a deed to be exec......
-
Signatures on Documents Affecting Title to Colorado Real Property-part Iii
...Colo. 363, 365, 373 P.2d 940, 941 (1962); Springer v. City Bank & Trust Co., 59 Colo. 376, 381, 149 P. 253, 255 (1911); Simpson v. Nelson, 71 Colo. 490, 491, 208 P. 455 (1922). 33. People's Mining & Milling Co. v. Central Consol. Mines Corp., 20 Colo.App. 561, 563, 80 P. 479 (1905). 34. Han......