Jones v. Sutton
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. During the lifetime of Isaac Cooper he became interested in the Roaring Fork Improvement Company with W. Henry Sutton, defendant in error, and likewise with one Bradley in the Pearl Mining Company. Both corporations were stocked and bonded, and their certificates and bonds were dealt in by the parties. While Cooper was living he received from Sutton various sums of money for which Sutton claims he died indebted.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. During the lifetime of Isaac Cooper he became interested in the Roaring Fork Improvement Company with W. Henry Sutton, defendant in error, and likewise with one Bradley in the Pearl Mining Company. Both corporations were stocked and bonded, and their certificates and bonds were dealt in by the parties. While Cooper was living he received from Sutton various sums of money for which Sutton claims he died indebted. The advances amount to $16,750. In the transactions resulting in the acquisition of title to the mining property, Cooper became…
1Opinion of the Court
Chiee Justice Hayt
delivered the opinion of the court;.
The appeal as taken from the county to the district court was properly taken under the amendment of 1891. See Session Laws, 1891, pp. 108,109.
The main contention in this court, as in the county and district courts, has reference to the proper construction of the two written contracts of May 1,1882. These agreements were executed contemporaneously, and relate to the same subject-matter; they refer one to the other and are to be construed together.
The first of these agreements also refers to, and is based upon a prior agreement executed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sutton v. JonesColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
- Sutton v. JonesColorado Court of Appeals · 1896