Court Opinion

ID: 9865005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:20:18.178008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:48.104140
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Bakke,
dissenting.
It is well to remember that in this case the question involved has to do with the ruling of the trial court on defendant’s motion to dismiss, upon which he elected to stand after the motion was denied. Under such circumstances the plaintiff’s evidence must be taken as true. Arps v. City and County of Denver, 82 Colo. 189, 257 Pac. 1094; Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534, 31 P. (2d) 918. In Ford v. Town of Meeker, 64 Colo. 201, 170 Pac. 955, we said: “A motion for nonsuit admits the truth of plaintiff’s evidence and every inference of fact that can legitimately be drawn, and on such motion the evidence will be interpreted most strongly against defendant. 38 Cyc. 1515. The plaintiff’s evidence made out a prima facie case. The defendant offered no testimony. Under these circumstances we deem it was error to sustain the motion.” See, also, Beatty v. Stir, 108 Colo. 253, 115 P. (2d) 644; Parrish v. Smith, 108 Colo. 256, 115 P. (2d) 647.
*330It is stated in the court’s opinion that there was no compliance with the guarantee in that the notification mentioned was not given. Assuming, as the author of the opinion does, that the condition means that Yama should be notified every two weeks, we have his statement, as noted in the opinion, that “the company notified me every two or three weeks.” (What he thought-was immaterial.)
It appears from the record that Morris, the company’s agent, who called at Yama’s store every week, stated that he- had weekly statements of the account with him, that these statements were regularly delivered to DeBus, and that Yama was present in the store ninety-nine percent of the time; that he, Morris, exhibited these weekly statemeiits -to Yama personally on numerous occasions, and that Yama “just thro wed up his hands.”
The only purpose of the so-called condition was to keep Yama advised of the status of the account. To reach the conclusion that he was not so advised, we would not only have to disregard the inferences that the trial court (not us) was entitled to draw, but also to ignore the plain meaning of Yama’s own words, and Morris’s undisputed testimony.
Not in my memory, have we gone to such length in reversing a judgment where motion of dismissal was denied. I respectfully dissent.