White v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

White v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.

433 P.2d 113, 164 Colo. 154, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 771

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedNovember 6, 1967

DocketNo. 21983

StatusPublished

This text of 433 P.2d 113 (White v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc.) 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

White v. F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., 433 P.2d 113, 164 Colo. 154, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 771 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moore.

Defendant in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, recovered a judgment against Arthur R. White in the amount of $928.52 for goods sold and delivered. In his answer to the complaint filed by F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., White alleged as an affirmative defense that any moneys due plaintiff for goods sold and delivered, as set forth [155]*155in the complaint, were payable by United Trailer Repair, Inc. and not by White, and that the “parties agreed to look to United Trailer Repair, Inc. for payment for goods sold and delivered and not to the defendant Arthur R. White individually.”

Trial was to the court. The evidence offered by plaintiff established a prima facie case of individual liability on the part of White. No evidence was offered by White to establish his affirmative defense, and the court thereupon entered judgment as hereinabove indicated.

If we correctly understand the argument made by counsel for reversal of the judgment, it is, that since his answer disclaimed personal liability of White and alleged that a corporate entity was solely responsible for payment of the claim, plaintiff had the burden of disproving this allegation contained in the answer of the defendant White. This contention is urged upon us notwithstanding that a clear case of personal liability was established by the plaintiff. We know of no authority which requires a plaintiff, in presenting his case in chief, to negative affirmative defenses set forth in the answer of a defendant.

The argument made on the question of “corporation by estoppel” was not raised upon the trial by appropriate pleading; was not mentioned in the motion for new trial; and was advanced for the first time in this court. Accordingly, even if applicable to the facts of this case — which it is not — it is not available to plaintiff in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice McWilliams, Mr. Justice Pringle and Mr. Justice Hodges concur.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moore.

Defendant in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, recovered a judgment against Arthur R. White in the amount of $928.52 for goods sold and delivered. In his answer to the complaint filed by F. A. Heckendorf, Inc., White alleged as an affirmative defense that any moneys due plaintiff for goods sold and delivered, as set forth [155]*155in the complaint, were payable by United Trailer Repair, Inc. and not by White, and that the “parties agreed to look to United Trailer Repair, Inc. for payment for goods sold and delivered and not to the defendant Arthur R. White individually.”

Trial was to the court. The evidence offered by plaintiff established a prima facie case of individual liability on the part of White. No evidence was offered by White to establish his affirmative defense, and the court thereupon entered judgment as hereinabove indicated.

If we correctly understand the argument made by counsel for reversal of the judgment, it is, that since his answer disclaimed personal liability of White and alleged that a corporate entity was solely responsible for payment of the claim, plaintiff had the burden of disproving this allegation contained in the answer of the defendant White. This contention is urged upon us notwithstanding that a clear case of personal liability was established by the plaintiff. We know of no authority which requires a plaintiff, in presenting his case in chief, to negative affirmative defenses set forth in the answer of a defendant.

The argument made on the question of “corporation by estoppel” was not raised upon the trial by appropriate pleading; was not mentioned in the motion for new trial; and was advanced for the first time in this court. Accordingly, even if applicable to the facts of this case — which it is not — it is not available to plaintiff in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice McWilliams, Mr. Justice Pringle and Mr. Justice Hodges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 P.2d 113, 164 Colo. 154, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-f-a-heckendorf-inc-colo-1967.