48 Colo. 212 | Colo. | 1910
delivered the opinion of the court:
Appellee, as plaintiff, brought a suit in replevin against the appellant, as defendant, before a justice of the peace, to recover the possession of an electric -piano. The judgment in that court was in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to
The only error assigned is, that the court erred in permitting a witness on behalf of plaintiff to testify that it was a corporation, the contention being that this fact could only be shown by a copy of its articles of incorporation. It appears from the testimony that the piano in question had been sold to a man by the name of Porte ;.that he executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure a part of the purchase price, and that afterwards the defendant obtained possession of it, part of the indebtedness secured by the chattel mortgage still being unpaid.
Prior to the commencement of the replevin suit negotiations were had between the parties with a view to the defendant becoming the purchaser. The negotiations were unsuccessful.
The name of plaintiff indicated that it was a corporation. One who has negotiated with a corporation with the view of purchasing from the latter an article of personal property in his possession will not be permitted, in an action against him by the corporation, to recover the possession of such property, to question its corporate existence.—Plummer v. Struby-Estabrook Mer. Co., 23 Colo. 190; First Cong. Church v. Grand Rapids School Furniture Co., 15 Col. App. 46; Grande Ronde Lumber Co. v. Cotton, 12 Col. App. 375.
The record discloses that in the justice’s court the defendant executed a redelivery bond. This obligation was in favor of the plaintiff in ‘its capacity
Tbe judgment of tbe county court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Steele and Mr. Justice Bailey concur.