Legal Opinion

Bartholomew v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 15, 1920No. 9563PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Denver District Court, Hon. Clarence J. Morley, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

The suit was by defendant in error, plaintiff below, on promissory notes. The answer denied'' non-payment, averred payment and denied all allegations not admitted. There was no replication; consequently the plea of payment stands admitted in the pleadings.

This court has wavered on the question but has finally determined that payment is an affirmative defense, even when it is negatived in the complaint and the answer con*245tains a general denial. Nitro Co. v. Kearns, 50 Colo. 1, 9, 114 Pac. 396; Harvey v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 262. 99 Pac. 31, 130 Am. St. 120; Florence O. & R. Co. v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thomas v. CareySupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
  2. Richards v. StewartSupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
  3. Harvey v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  4. Nitro Powder Co. v. KearnsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Continental Oil Co. v. ZaringColorado Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Colorado Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. BeerySupreme Court of Colorado · 1959
  3. Gattavara v. CaldwellWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Sethman Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Mountain States Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
  5. Colorado Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. BeerySupreme Court of Colorado · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API