Court Opinion

ID: 9624579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:10:02.540452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:50.409693
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached by this Court but do so on different grounds. Mr. Justice Pringle, speaking for the Court, concludes by stating that “although the trial court cited the wrong reason for his judgment, the law requires the result obtained.” In my view of the matter the trial court cited the “right reason” for his judgment and I would affirm the judgment on that basis.
It is my view, as it was the trial court’s view, that:
(1) the General Assembly by amending in 1957 that which now appears as C.R.S. 1963, 153-12-2 did not change the rule announced in McCutchen v. Osborne, 61 Colo. 408, 158 P. 136;
. (2) the rule announced by us in McCutchen, which *202rule incidentally was thereafter recognized and approved in Chavez v. Gallup, 77 Colo. 141, 235 P. 345 and California Ins. Co. v. Dudley, 69 Colo. 560, 195 P. 649, is still then the law in Colorado and hence the word “trustee,” as used in C.R.S. ’53, 152-12-2(1), includes only those trustees holding money under a technical (express) or special trust, as opposed to an implied trust;
(3) the claim of Fleming and Pattridge does not arise out of any express or technical trust relationship between them and the decedent, and therefore the claim is not of the first class, but only of the fifth class.