Legal Opinion

Faris v. Beck

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 7, 1924No. 10,814PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

Faris, defendant below, brings error upon a judgment against him on a verdict directed at the close of the evidence, in an action on a promissory note. He moves for a supersedeas.

Four defenses are pleaded: (1) That the note was a renewal of one given as purchase price of stock which was worthless and was never delivered and so consideration failed. (2) That both notes were delivered upon the express condition that defendant would not be required to *482pay them except out of dividends of the stock so purchased. (3) That the notes were delivered for the sole purpose of securing for the company the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Otis v. Cullum, ReceiverSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Mumford v. TolmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Mulford v. Torrey Exploration Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  4. Hunting v. DownerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  5. Peck Colorado Co. v. StrattonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1899

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Weede v. BechtelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1952
  2. Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Wheelock v. HondiusSupreme Court of Colorado · 1924
  4. Rock River Investment Co. v. Mountain Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1934
  5. Dant & Russell, Inc. v. OstlindOregon Supreme Court · 1934

10 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