Wade v. State, 13658.

Docket Nº13658.
Citation97 Colo. 52, 47 P.2d 412
Case DateMay 06, 1935
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

47 P.2d 412

97 Colo. 52

WADE et al.
v.
STATE.

No. 13658.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 6, 1935


Rehearing Denied July 1, 1935.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W. Steele, Judge.

Action by the State of Colorado against L. J. Wade and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

[97 Colo. 53] Benjamin C. Hilliard, Jr., and Barker & Webster, all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Paul P. Prosser, Atty. Gen., and Oliver Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

C. M. Somerville, C. H. Beeler, and J. P. Deatherage, all of Hogo, M. M. Bulkeley, of Wray, Charles A. Petrie, of Eads, Samuel Chutkow, Chutkow & Atler, Clayton C. Dorsey, and Horace N. Hawkins, all of Denver, and Phelps & Gobin, of Pueblo, amici curiae.

[97 Colo. 54] HOLLAND, Justice.

On January 16, 1934, the state of Colorado, as plaintiff, filed its complaint in the district court against the Denver Union Oil Company, a corporation, Irma L. Nance, and L. J. Wade, as defendants. Reference will be made to the parties herein as the state, the oil company, Wade, and Nance, or defendants.

The undisputed facts are substantially as follows: On May 22, 1933, the defendant oil company made written application to the state treasurer for a license to operate as a distributor of motor fuel, under chapter 140, p. 715, Session Laws of 1933, commonly called the Motor Fuel Act. As provided in said act, the oil company, on May 29, 1933, filed with the state treasurer its surety bond, signed by defendants Wade and Nance, as sureties. The bond was in the principal sum of $4,420, in favor of the state of Colorado, which obligation was conditioned upon the principal paying to the state all taxes and penalties due or to become due it, under the Motor Fuel Act, the term of the obligation to begin May 20, 1933. On May 29, 1933, the state treasurer approved the bond and the sureties thereon and issued a distributor's license as applied for. During the time this bond was in full force and effect in the months of October and November, 1933, the distributor received and distributed certain quantities of gasoline upon which a tax of 4 cents per gallon became due the state which, after written demand by the state, the oil company failed to pay. This suit was instituted by the state against the oil company and the sureties on its bond, to recover the tax. The case was submitted to the court without evidence, it being stipulated that if the court determined...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Friends of Chamber Music v. City and County of Denver, 83SA185
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 25, 1985
    ...does not have standing to protest the validity of the taxing statute because the collector is not injured by the statute. Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 47 P.2d 412 (1935). Since that time, however, we have held that a court first should look to the language of the statute in determining who h......
  • Denver Center for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 83SA146
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 25, 1985
    ...$100,000 of its own funds meets the first part of the Wimberly test. 2 This allegation distinguishes the present case from Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 55, 47 P.2d 412, 413 (1935), in which the tax collector was held to have no standing because it acknowledged that it had already collected t......
  • In re Hunter's Estate, 13726.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 9, 1935
    ...without limit. Clayton O. Dorsey, Esq., of counsel here for the plaintiffs in error, appeared as amicus curiae in Wade v. State (Colo.) 47 P.2d 412. In his brief in that matter, discussing the revenues of the state, he drew our attention to some remarkable things. He said: extent to which t......
  • ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. Couch, RINK-A-DINK
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 6, 1983
    ...sections is a trustee and answerable to the state for such moneys until they are paid over to the state treasurer. See, Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 47 P. (2d) 412. The state is not obligated to resort to the ordinary processes available for the collection of private debts to enforce its cla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Friends of Chamber Music v. City and County of Denver, 83SA185
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 25, 1985
    ...does not have standing to protest the validity of the taxing statute because the collector is not injured by the statute. Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 47 P.2d 412 (1935). Since that time, however, we have held that a court first should look to the language of the statute in determining who h......
  • Denver Center for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 83SA146
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 25, 1985
    ...$100,000 of its own funds meets the first part of the Wimberly test. 2 This allegation distinguishes the present case from Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 55, 47 P.2d 412, 413 (1935), in which the tax collector was held to have no standing because it acknowledged that it had already collected t......
  • In re Hunter's Estate, 13726.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 9, 1935
    ...without limit. Clayton O. Dorsey, Esq., of counsel here for the plaintiffs in error, appeared as amicus curiae in Wade v. State (Colo.) 47 P.2d 412. In his brief in that matter, discussing the revenues of the state, he drew our attention to some remarkable things. He said: extent to which t......
  • ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. Couch, RINK-A-DINK
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 6, 1983
    ...sections is a trustee and answerable to the state for such moneys until they are paid over to the state treasurer. See, Wade v. State, 97 Colo. 52, 47 P. (2d) 412. The state is not obligated to resort to the ordinary processes available for the collection of private debts to enforce its cla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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