Parker v. Cochrane
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to District Court of Fremont County. The amended complaint alleges “that on, to wit, the 1st day of July, A. D. 1882, the defendants became and were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $520 for and on account of certain chattels; that is to say, twenty-six head of cattle of the price and value of $20 for each one thereof, bargained and sold, and then delivered, by the plaintiff to and for the defendants, at the instance and request of the defendants; that for said…
Read the full summary
Error to District Court of Fremont County. The amended complaint alleges “that on, to wit, the 1st day of July, A. D. 1882, the defendants became and were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $520 for and on account of certain chattels; that is to say, twenty-six head of cattle of the price and value of $20 for each one thereof, bargained and sold, and then delivered, by the plaintiff to and for the defendants, at the instance and request of the defendants; that for said cattle the said defendants, upon said delivery thereof, became and were and are liable to pay the plaintiff the price of $20…
1Opinion of the CourtElbert, J.
It is difficult to treat the second defense interposed by the defendants’ answer as anything more than a plea that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. In this view the answer is bad. The same issue is presented by the allegations of the complaint and the answer traversing them. Under the issues thus made it was competent for the defendants to show that W. C. Parker, and not the plaintiff, was the real owner. Bliss, Code PL § 321 et seg. The written contract with W. C. *367Parker set up and alleged in this defense, its breach, and the damages resulting therefrom, is irrelevant matter…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cochrane v. ParkerColorado Court of Appeals · 1898
- Western Loan & Savings Co. v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Satisfaction Title & Investment Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Cochrane v. ParkerColorado Court of Appeals · 1898