McDonald v. Thibault

Supreme Court of Colorado

McDonald v. Thibault

271 P. 183, 84 Colo. 470, 1928 Colo. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedOctober 15, 1928

DocketNo. 12,161.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 P. 183 (McDonald v. Thibault) 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

McDonald v. Thibault, 271 P. 183, 84 Colo. 470, 1928 Colo. LEXIS 361 (Colo. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waliieb

delivered the opinion of the court.

The trial court rendered judgment against the plaintiff in error, for $262.50, for services rendered to her by-defendant in error, in connection with the sale of a hotel business. The judgment appears to have been arrived at upon a quantum meruit. The count in the complaint upon which the judgment was based was substantially as follows: That the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $525, on an account for services ren *471 dered by the plaintiff as a broker, in securing a purchaser for a hotel and restaurant business, fixtures, equipment, and other personal property, belonging to the defendants, which services were performed at the request of the defendants, in Lincoln county, Colorado, between October, 1926, and February, 1927; and that the defendants have not paid the same nor any part thereof. A general demurrer to this count was overruled, and error is assigned to this, as well as other rulings.

We find in the record no evidence of the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff, but at all events, the judgment must be reversed because of the error of the court in overruling the demurrer.

Disregarding its conclusions of law, the count in question alleged the performance of services by the plaintiff at defendant’s request. This would be sufficient to raise an implied promise to pay. Leitensdorfer v. King, Adm., 7 Colo. 436, 4 Pac. 37, 5 Pac. 816; Campbell v. Shiland, 14 Colo. 491, 23 Pac. 324. But the demurrer should have been sustained because of the omission of the pleader to allege either an agreed price, or the reasonable value of the services. See 26 Stand. Ency. Proc. 529; Murphy v. Taylor, 173 Pa. St. 317, 33 Atl. 1041; 22 Ency. Pl. & Prac. 1369.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint as he may be advised. '

Me. Chibe Justice Denison, Me. Justice Butt.ee, sitting for Me. Justice Bueke, and Me. Justice Campbell, sitting for Me. Justice Whiteoed, concur.

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

Mr. Justice Waliieb

delivered the opinion of the court.

The trial court rendered judgment against the plaintiff in error, for $262.50, for services rendered to her by-defendant in error, in connection with the sale of a hotel business. The judgment appears to have been arrived at upon a quantum meruit. The count in the complaint upon which the judgment was based was substantially as follows: That the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $525, on an account for services ren *471 dered by the plaintiff as a broker, in securing a purchaser for a hotel and restaurant business, fixtures, equipment, and other personal property, belonging to the defendants, which services were performed at the request of the defendants, in Lincoln county, Colorado, between October, 1926, and February, 1927; and that the defendants have not paid the same nor any part thereof. A general demurrer to this count was overruled, and error is assigned to this, as well as other rulings.

We find in the record no evidence of the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff, but at all events, the judgment must be reversed because of the error of the court in overruling the demurrer.

Disregarding its conclusions of law, the count in question alleged the performance of services by the plaintiff at defendant’s request. This would be sufficient to raise an implied promise to pay. Leitensdorfer v. King, Adm., 7 Colo. 436, 4 Pac. 37, 5 Pac. 816; Campbell v. Shiland, 14 Colo. 491, 23 Pac. 324. But the demurrer should have been sustained because of the omission of the pleader to allege either an agreed price, or the reasonable value of the services. See 26 Stand. Ency. Proc. 529; Murphy v. Taylor, 173 Pa. St. 317, 33 Atl. 1041; 22 Ency. Pl. & Prac. 1369.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint as he may be advised. '

Me. Chibe Justice Denison, Me. Justice Butt.ee, sitting for Me. Justice Bueke, and Me. Justice Campbell, sitting for Me. Justice Whiteoed, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 P. 183, 84 Colo. 470, 1928 Colo. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-thibault-colo-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack