White v. Baugher

• Citation: 256 P. 1092,82 Colo. 75
• Decision Date: 13 June 1927
• Docket Number: 11736.
• Parties: WHITE v. BAUGHER.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

256 P. 1092

82 Colo. 75

WHITE v. BAUGHER.

No. 11736.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 13, 1927

Department 1.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; James C Starkweather, Judge.

Action by L. V. Baugher against Grant White. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error and moves for supersedeas.

Reversed and new trial granted.

H. E Luthe, of Denver, and P. M. Kistler, of Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.

Hillyer & Hillyer, of Denver, for defendant in error.

DENISON J.

Baugher, plaintiff below, had judgment against White on trial to the court, and brings error and moves for supersedeas. The judgment must be reversed.

The action was to rescind a contract by which White had agreed to convey 160 acres of land to Baugher upon the transfer, which Baugher had agreed to make, of the lease and furniture of a rooming house in Denver known as the Lehigh Apartments, and further considerations not material here.

The complaint charged false representations by White as to the amount of land under cultivation. The answer charged false representations by Baugher, including statements as to the quality of the furniture and the income of the said apartments.

Upon trial, the defendants offered to prove these charges, but the evidence was rejected by the court. The representations above specified were relevant, material, and competent, whether other representations were or not, because, if the plaintiff made them, and they were false, he was not in court with clean hands, and the court should have dismissed the bill. The evidence therefore should have been received. Drake v. Gilpin Mining Co., 16 Colo. 231, 27 P. 708; Williams v. Davis (Colo.) 254 P. 777, decided at the present term; Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Denver Live Stock Exchange, 74 Colo. 212, 220 P. 402; Primeau v. Granfield (C.C.A.) 193 F. 911, 913, 914; Id., 225 U.S. 708, 32 S.Ct. 839, 56 L.Ed. 1267; Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, v. Woodmen of the World, 73 Colo. 57, 213 P. 579.

It is claimed that the defendant, after he discovered the falsity of plaintiff's representations, ratified the contract. If that is true, it is irrelevant to the present question though it would be important if the defendant were seeking rescission. The rule as to 'clean hands' is one of public policy, for the protection of the integrity of the court, not for a defense. 21 C.J. 186; Houtz v. Hellman, 228 Mo. 661, 128 S.W. 1001. A party cannot...