Case ID: colo_82/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Denison", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 11,899.
    Latzer v. Tedford.
    Decided September 12, 1927.
    Action to rescind purchase of interest in business. Judgment for plaintiff.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      On Application for Supersedeas.
    
    1. Appeal and Error — Deficient Record. Where the court’s reasons for denying a motion to discharge a receiver do not appear, it will not be assumed on review that they were not good.
    2. Receivers — Involuntary Servitude. The contention that to compel a party to continue as receiver after he has asked for his discharge is to impose upon him involuntary servitude, not considered.
    
      Error to the District Court of the City and County, of Denver, Hon. George F. Dunklee, Judge.
    
    Mr. Nathan I. Golden, Mr. David W. Oyler, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. C. H. Scribner, Mr. Lowell White, for defendant in error.
    
      En Banc.
    
   Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

Tedpord had judgment to rescind his purchase of a half interest in Latzer’s business on the ground of fraud. Latzer brings error and moves for supersedeas.

The fraud consisted in false representations by Latzer, when he sold to Tedford, that he was making $100 per week, winter and summer. It is claimed that the evidence does not support the finding, but, if the court believed Tedford’s evidence, no other finding was possible.

Latzer was appointed receiver. He complains that the court denied his motion for discharge, but the court’s reasons do not appear and we cannot assume that they were not good. His counsel assert that to compel him to continue as receiver is to impose involuntary servitude, but we hardly think they expect serious consideration of that ])oint.

Supersedeas denied and judgment affirmed.