Case Name: Sauer v. First National Bank of Fort Collins
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1924-03-03
Citations: 75 Colo. 119
Docket Number: No. 10,896
Parties: Sauer v. First National Bank of Fort Collins.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
No. 10,896.
Sauer v. First National Bank of Fort Collins.
Decided March 3, 1924.
Action to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyance. Judgment for plaintiff.
Affirmed.
On Application for Supersedeas.
1. Witnesses — Competency. In an action to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance, the defendant being the widow of the deceased grantor, and defending in her individual as well as representative capacity as administratrix, witnesses held competent to testify to conversations between themselves and the ■grantor in his lifetime, and the testimony admissible.
2. Appeal and Error — Legal Presumption. On review it will be presumed that the trial court acted on a correct conception of the law.
Error to the District Court of Larimer County, Hon. Neil F. Graham, Judge.
Messrs. Stow & Stover, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Paul W. Lee, Mr. George H. Shaw, Mr. Wm. A. Bryans, III, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Allen
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error and applies for a supersedeas.
The conveyance sought to be set aside is a deed executed by one George Sauer to his wife on July 12, 1921. The grantor died January 11, 1922. The defendant herein is the grantee. She is sued both as administratrix of the estate of the deceased grantor and in her individual capacity. Error is assigned to the court's permitting certain witnesses to testify concerning conversations between themselves respectively and the deceased. Since the defendant claims and defends, as an individual, under the deed,, the witnesses were competent and the testimony admissible. Gabrin v. Brister, 65 Colo. 407, 177 Pac. 134.
Other assignments of error go to the court's decision on the merits of the case. While numerous legal propositions are discussed, it is not shown that the trial court acted upon pny incorrect conception of the law. The presumption is to the contrary. Davis v. Pursel, 55 Colo. 287, 291, 134 Pac. 107. The evidence is sufficient to support the decree.
•The application for a supersedeas is denied and the judgment is affirmed.
Me. Chief Justice Tellee and Me. Justice Bueke concur.