Sopris v. Truax
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Probate Court, Arapahoe County. The instructions given at the trial, which are referred to in the opinion of the court, are as follows : “1st. That the only matter in dispute in this case is the ownership of the property in question. 2d.
Read the full summary
Error to Probate Court, Arapahoe County. The instructions given at the trial, which are referred to in the opinion of the court, are as follows : “1st. That the only matter in dispute in this case is the ownership of the property in question. 2d. That fraud can never be presumed; that fraud must not only be alleged in the pleadings in specific terms, but it must be proved, and the jury are instructed that there is no allegation of fraud in any of the pleadings that make up the issue to be tried in this case. 5th. That evidence, tending to show that James W. Truax was occasionally in…
1Opinion of the CourtHallett, C. J.
This was an action of replevin, the first count in the declaration being for taking, and the second count for detaining, the property in controversy. Upon the trial in the court below, there was no evidence whatever to show a taking of the property as alleged in the first count, or a detention as alleged in the second count. The evidence was directed to the question of the ownership of the property, and if it should be conceded that the plaintiff below established her title, she was, nevertheless, bound to demand the possession of the property before she commenced suit. Ingalls v. Bulkley, 13…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ingalls v. BulkleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
- Bond v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by6 opinions
- Benesch v. WaggnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- Seeleman v. HoaglandSupreme Court of Colorado · 1893
- Phenix Iron Works Co. v. McEvonyNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Conner v. KnottSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Plano Manufacturing Co. v. PersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.