Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brooks v. Black

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided April 15, 1912No. 3402Published

Appeal from Larimer District Court. Hon. Jambs E. Gtarrigues, Judge.

1Concurrence

Cunningham,

Judge, specially concurring:

I cannot concur in the reasoning by which the majority of the court has reached the conclusion that the homestead exemption was . properly claimed and allowed. To hold that a claim of homestead may be made upon a deed or instrument fraudulently executed, delivered and accepted, is to abrogate section 2671 R. S. pertaining to frauds and perjuries, or to amend said section by judicial construction, and thereby make it read:

“Every conveyance of any real estate or interest in land made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors of their just demands…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Long v. MurphySupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
  2. McPhee v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
  3. Deere v. ChapmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Tibbetts v. TerrillSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  5. Pratt v. BurrU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin · 1857

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API