Title: Wilder v. Baker

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

362 P.2d 1045 (1961) William L. WILDER, Plaintiff In Error, v. Anna BAKER, Defendant in Error. No. 19867. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. June 19, 1961. Rehearing Denied July 17, 1961. *1046 Frank P. Lynch, Jr., Kenneth C. Groves, Denver, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. Defendant in error, to whom we will refer as plaintiff, brought this action in the district court against William L. and Lillian E. Wilder to recover an amount allegedly due under the terms of a written contract made by the parties. The Wilders were husband and wife when the contract was made. Plaintiff is the mother of Lillian E. Wilder. The contract was attached to and incorporated in the complaint, as Exhibit A. It appears from said exhibit that plaintiff borrowed money on the security of real estate owned by her; that she turned over to the Wilders $2,000 of the sum borrowed; that the Wilders agreed to pay off the loan to the extent of the amount received by them, plus certain other expenses connected with obtaining the money. It was alleged in the complaint that the Wilders failed to pay and that plaintiff was compelled to make repayment of the loan to prevent loss of her property. No service of process was had upon Lillian E. Wilder. William Wilder denied liability, and alleged that the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. The case was tried without a jury and resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $2,120. William Wilder seeks review by writ of error. The findings of the trial court point up the argument relied upon for reversal. The pertinent portion thereof is as follows: With reference to the first argument above mentioned, the findings of the court quoted at some length from the testimony of plaintiff, and at the conclusion thereof we find the following: "From the foregoing, we have the inconsistency of the witness stating on cross-examination that she had released her daughter but, on direct examination *1047 denying that she had released her daughter. But regardless of the testimony, we know that there was no formal or actual release of the defendant Lillian E. Wilder such as would constitute a release of the defendant William L. Wilder as co-obligor. We are in complete agreement with the trial court's conclusion and have no hesitancy in saying that no error was committed in that connection. With reference to the defense that the indebtedness had been discharged in bankruptcy, we again quote from the trial court's findings pertinent portions which are a complete answer to the argument of counsel for Wilder: There is competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court in the particulars mentioned and its conclusions based thereon were correct. The judgment is affirmed. DAY and DOYLE, JJ., not participating.