Case Name: Adams v. Warren
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1900-01
Citations: 27 Colo. 293
Docket Number: No. 3776
Parties: Adams v. Warren.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 293–299

Head Matter:
[No. 3776.]
Adams v. Warren.
1. Practice — Cause Remanded for Accounting — Counterclaim— New Cause of Action.
Where a decree for plaintiff in an action to establish a trust in real estate was affirmed conditioned that title should not vest in plaintiff until he paid to defendants all taxes paid by them and the cause was remanded with directions to the lower court to take an accounting of taxes paid, the plaintiff could only introduce in evidence as against the taxes, matters purely defensive, and it was erroneous to permit him to offset the taxes with a counterclaim for personal property received and money collected by defendants, as such counterclaim introduced an entirely new cause of action. -
2. Same.
Where a decree for plaintiff in an action to establish a trust in real estate was affirmed conditioned that plaintiff reimburse defendants for taxes paid in excess of the money, if any, received by defendants for plaintiff, and the cause was remanded for an accounting, the direction of the court must be construed as meaning all taxes paid in excess of money received from plaintiff for that express purpose, and will not permit plaintiff to offset the taxes' with a counterclaim for money or property received by defendants for any other purpose, and the fact that the replication in the original cause averred that defendants had received funds belonging to plaintiff for which no account was rendered, did not make such funds a part of the original action, so that the items thereof could be offset against the taxes paid.
3. Practice — New Cause of Action — Objection to Evidence.
Where a cause was affirmed but remanded to take an accounting of taxes paid by the defendants against whom the judgment was rendered, and the plaintiff offered to offset the taxes by counterclaim of a new cause of action, objection to the departure could be raised by objection to the introduction of evidence without a motion or demurrer for that purpose.
jError to the District Court of Arapahoe County.
This action was originally commenced by plaintiff in error against defendants in error to establish a trust in certain real estate, which had descended to them as the heirs of John W. Iliff, deceased. From a judgment in his favor, defendants in error appealed to this court, where the judgment was affirmed, but the cause remanded with directions to take an account of the amount of the taxes paid by the deceased and defendants in error, .and that the repayment of the same should be made a condition precedent to the divestiture of title. Warren v. Adams, 19 Colo. 515. Pursuant to this order defendants in error filed an answer, in the court below, setting up their claim on account of taxes paid upon the lands in controversy, which they were entitled to have repaid. To this answer, plaintiff in error filed a counterclaim, by which it was asserted that on account of moneys collected by the deceased and property disposed of which had been placed in his hands, there was due him from the estate of the deceased a sum largely in excess of the amount paid for taxes on the lands in question, for which sum he prays' judgment against defendants in error. Testimony of witnesses to establish this claim was received over the objection and exception of the defendants in error, the ground of such objections being that by the former opinion of this court the inquiry was limited to the amount of taxes paid upon such lands by deceased and themselves, and that the items of the account, as stated in the counterclaim have reference to dealings with the deceased in no manner connected with the lands in controversy. From the evidence introduced by the respective parties, the court found that the taxes paid, which defendants in error were entitled to be repaid, amounted to the sum of $2,762.10, and that the value of the personal property taken and held by deceased and money collected by him belonging to plaintiff in error, to the sum of $24,750. On these findings of fact, judgment was rendered offsetting against the claim of defendants in error for taxes paid, the value of the personal property held by deceased, and money collected by him on account of plaintiff in error, but that the latter was not entitled to a judgment for the difference. From this judgment, plaintiff in error brings the case here for review, claiming that he is entitled to a judgment in his favor for the difference between the two sums. Defendants in error assign, as cross errors, the judgment of the trial court in offsetting the value of the personal property claimed to have been turned over to deceased, and' the money collected by him against the amount advanced for taxes; and also the action of the court in overruling their objections to the introduction of testimony in support of the counterclaim. The parties to this proceeding bear the same relation as in the trial court, and for that reason will be referred to in the opinion as plaintiff and defendants.
Mr. Thos. B. Stuart, Mr. Chas. A. Murray and Mr. J. C. Helm, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Daniel Prescott and Mr. Thomas Macon, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gabbert
delivered the opinion of the court.
Counsel for plaintiff contend that he is entitled to establish his counterclaim against the estate of deceased, and incidentally, as a personal obligation of defendants, to the extent that they may have received property as the heirs of deceased, for the reason that such property to a value sufficient to satisfy his claim, is held by them in trust for that purpose. Defendants having been defeated in their contention that the land in question was their absolute property, were entitled to be repaid the taxes paid thereon by the deceased and themselves. When the cause was remanded they asserted this right by an answer. To defeat this claim, plaintiff could properly plead, by way of replication, and prove, any facts constituting a defense to it which was purely defensive, or, by way of reply, could controvert or avoid the claim for taxes, but nothing more. He could not do so, however, by pleading or attempting to prove a new cause of action over the objection of the defendants, for the reason that such a defense to their right to be reimbursed for taxes paid would be a departure from the cause of action stated in his complaint. Bliss on Code Pleading (2d ed.), § 396. The transactions between plaintiff and deceased, as stated in the complaint, and the counterclaim interposed to the claim of defendants to be reimbursed for taxes, were entirely distinct and separate. Neither had any connection with the other. In his former pleading, no claim was attempted to be asserted by plaintiff upon the transaction which he now seeks to make the basis of a cause of action against the defendants in his counterclaim; consequently, by the latter, he has attempted to state a new and independent cause of action, and not matter which merely supported the one stated in the complaint, and therefore, by his replication, has clearly departed from the cause of action originally pleaded. Durbin v. Fisk, 16 Ohio St. 533 : Lillienthal v. Hotaling, 15 Oregon, 371; 6 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 461.
Plaintiff is limited in his recovery to the cause stated in his complaint, in which the land in question was the only subject-matter of controversy. For these reasons the items of the counterclaim could not be made the basis of a set-off as againstthe taxes advancedby the deceased, Iliff, or the defendants, nor established as a claim against the latter in this action for the excess. The testimony received in support of plaintiff's counterclaim should have been rejected. The judgment of the district court is, therefore, reversed upon the cross errors assigned by defendants, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss ths cross-complaint of plaintiff, and render judgment in favor of defendants for" the amount of taxes found to have been paid by them and- deceased upon the lands in question, with interest, and that such sum, together with the costs incurred by them in this court in this case, as well as below on the accounting, be repaid by plaintiff before title to such lands vested in him, and that on failure to pay such sum within some reasonable time to be fixed by the trial court, the decree establishing the trust be set aside and the action of plaintiff dismissed.
Reversed and remanded.