Stiles v. McClellan
| Decision Date | 01 December 1881 |
| Parties | STILES v. MCCLELLAN ET AL. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court of Arapahoe County.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Messrs BROWNE and PUTNAM, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. T D. W. YONLEY and Messrs. B. M. and C. J. HUGHES, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, alleged in his complaint that on the 1st day of May, 1879, he purchased the Davidson ranch, Park county, for $2,500, and prior to October 1st paid thereon $1,200; during that time defendants were proprietors of, and running a coach line from the end of the track of the Denver, South Park & Pacific Railroad to Leadville, carrying many passengers; that said ranch was situated on said line, and was conveniently located for an eating station.
The second paragraph of the complaint is as follows 'Plaintiff further alleges that before he made said purchase he had the positive promise of the defendants that the said ranch should be made, and so long as they continued to operate said line of stage-coaches should remain, the eating station for all passengers, both for breakfast and dinner, carried by said defendants; that the plaintiff was induced by these promises to make the purchase of said ranch, and to expend a large sum of money, not less than $1,000, in improving, furnishing and supplying said ranch for the purposes aforesaid, and that but for these promises of the defendants he never would have made the purchase, or the aforesaid expenditures.'
The breach stated is, that although defendants continued to own and operate said stage line up to the 1st day of October, they withdrew the patronage of the passengers from his ranch, part of it on the 1st day of June, and the balance thereof on the 15th day of August, 1879; that the ranch was only valuable for said patronage, and so long as it lasted the plaintiff had realized great profits, which would have continued until the 1st day of October; but that in consequence of its withdrawal plaintiff was required to sell, and did sell, the ranch for half the sum he had paid for it, and lost the profits guaranteed to him by the defendants as aforesaid.
Damages are laid at the sum of $2,000.
A demurrer was sustained to this complaint, and the plaintiff electing to abide by his demurrer, final judgment was rendered for the defendants.
We think the demurrer was properly sustained.
The transaction stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gile v. Interstate Motor Car Company, a Corporation
...there should be an absolute mutuality of engagements, so that each party may have an action upon it or neither will be bound. Stiles v. McClellan 6 Colo. 89. The to constitute a consideration for each other, must be concurrent or become obligatory at the same time, otherwise each will be wi......
-
Gile v. Inter-State Motor Car Co.
...there should be an absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party may have an action upon it, or neither will be bound. Stiles v. McClellan, 6 Colo. 89. The promise to constitute a consideration for each other must be concurrent, or become obligatory at the same time; otherwise each w......
-
Houser v. Hobart
... ... of engagements, so that each party may have an action upon ... it, or neither will be bound. Stiles v. McClellan , 6 ... Colo. 89. The promises, to constitute a consideration for ... each other, must be concurrent, or become obligatory at the ... ...
-
School District No. 8 v. Twin Falls County Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
...to municipalities or quasi municipalities. (Independent School Dist. v. Collins, 15 Idaho 535, 128 Am. St. 76; 9 Cyc. 325; Stiles v. McClellan, 6 Colo. 89; Bache & Co. v. Coppes etc. Co., 35 Ind.App. 351, 111 Am. St. 171, 74 N.E. 41; Doe v. Culverwell, 35 Cal. 291; Fanning v. Hibernia Ins. ......