George v. Tufts

5 Colo. 162
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedDecember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 5 Colo. 162 (George v. Tufts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George v. Tufts, 5 Colo. 162 (Colo. 1879).

Opinion

Elbert, O. J.

Where a cause is heard on an agreed state of facts, no exception to the judgment is necessary. Clayton v. Smith, 1 Col. 95.

The agreement of Tufts with Berbower and Walther, that the title to the property sold and delivered to .them should remain in Tufts until payment of the purchase-money, was void as to creditors. Tufts, if desirous of preserving a lien on the property sold, should have complied with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Act then in force. H. S. 102.

Secret liens, which treat the vendor of personal property who has delivered possession of it to the purchaser as the owner until the payment of the purchase-money, -cannot be maintained. They are constructively fraudulent as to creditors, and the property, so far as their rights are concerned, is considered as belonging to the purchaser holding the possession. This is the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Illinois under a similar statute. Murch v. Wright, 46 Ill. 488; McCormick v. Hadden, 37 Ill. 360; Ketcher v. Watson, 24 Ill. 59; Henry et al. v. R. I. Locomotive Works, 3 Otto, 672. [166]*166Nor does notice of the lien affect the right of creditors. Frank v. Miner, 50 Ill. 445; Porter v. Dement, 35 Ill. 479.

The judgment of the court below on the agreed facts should have been for the plaintiff in error. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Illinois Building Co. v. Patterson
15 P.2d 699 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1932)
Burroughs Adding MacH. Co. v. Bogdon
9 F.2d 54 (Eighth Circuit, 1925)
Turnbull v. Cole
201 P. 887 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1921)
In re J. S. Appel Suit & Cloak Co.
198 F. 322 (D. Colorado, 1912)
Coors v. Reagan
44 Colo. 126 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1908)
Bunte v. Wilson
8 Colo. App. 136 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Whitehead v. Jessup
7 Colo. App. 460 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Jones v. Clark
20 Colo. 353 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1894)
Harper v. People ex rel. Beers
2 Colo. App. 177 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1892)
Weber v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.
2 Colo. App. 68 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1892)
Frank v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co.
23 F. 123 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Colo. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-tufts-colo-1879.