Court Opinion

ID: 9865186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:26:38.485979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:50.302580
License: Public Domain

On Rehearimg.

Zamp
received a trustee’s deed September 2, 1926, and the same day notified the mortgagor, Lamon, to quit on September 6th. September 7th Zamp brought suit in unlawful detainer before justice of the peace. Defendant *91answered that September 4th, “plaintiff agreed, in consideration of the snm of $35, to be paid to him, that he would extend the time for defendant to vacate the premises mentioned in the complaint until he (the defendant) could get loan papers made out, ’ ’ but afterwards refused to carry out the agreement. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appealed to the county court where judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the pleadings. The question here is whether that was right. We think not.
Since the $35 is not shown to have been either paid or promised no valid consideration is shown for the promise of forbearance and therefore a general demurrer would lie to the answer; but that does not necessarily furnish a case for judgment on the pleadings. The motion is not a substitute for demurrer, and should not be sustained where the defect complained of is proper to be cured by amendment, which the present one is. Kingsbury v. Vreeland, 58 Colo. 212, 215, 144 Pac. 887, and cases there cited; Wallace v. Collier, 59 Colo. 144, 148; 147 Pac. 660; Childers v. Baird, 59 Colo. 382, 387, 148 Pac. 854. The motion is apt to work injustice and should be granted only with circumspection, and not when merely no defense appears, but only when it appears that the answer is such that no amendment could make it good.
The question of the statute of frauds is argued, but in the statement of a,contract such as might be within the statute it is not necessary to say that it is in writing. If it is not, that is a matter of confession and avoidance. Tucker v. Edwards, 7 Colo. 209, 211, 3 Pac. 233; Hunt v. Hayt, 10 Colo. 278, 281, 15 Pac. 410; McLure v. Koen, 25 Colo. 284, 287, 53 Pac. 1058; Pettit v. Mayhew, 43 Colo. 274, 276, 95 Pac. 939; Dennison v. Barney, 49 Colo. 442, 447, 113 Pac. 519; Expansion Co. v. Campbell, 62 Colo. 410, 417,163 Pac. 968; Tynon v. Despain, 22 Colo. 240, 43 Pac. 1039.
It does not appear that the contract was not in writing, therefore the statute of frauds is out of the question.
*92The former opinion is withdrawn; the judgment is reversed with directions to overrule the motion for judgment on the pleadings and proceed with the case.