32:T515,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co., 233 P. 831","datePublished":"1925-02-02","legislationDate":"1925-02-02","citation":"Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co., 233 P. 831 (Colo. 1925)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of Colorado","description":"Read the full text of Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co. (Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co., 233 P. 831 (Colo. 1925)). This legal opinion, filed in 1925-02-02, from the Supreme Court of Colorado discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/scroggs-v-harkness-heights-land--3315901"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/scroggs-v-harkness-heights-land--3315901","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co., Supreme Court of Colorado, Scroggs v. Harkness Heights Land Co., 233 P. 831 (Colo. 1925)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T52e, Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error was plaintiff below and had a decree quieting its title to a lot in Denver. Louise C. Anderson, one of the defendants below, alone assigns error.

Mrs. Anderson claims under one Addis who had an unrecorded contract of purchase from the plaintiff company in whom the title stood of record. Payments were defaulted, and, after thirty days’ notice to all parties, including Mrs. Anderson, to come in and pay, and failure by all to do so, the company took possession.

The claim of plaintiff in error is that she was misled into the purchase of the lot by the conduct of the plaintiff in holding out Addis as the owner, but the evidence is that her son and agent, who conducted the transaction for her, *598 had actual and previous notice of the plaintiff’s title and of the fact that Addis- held only by contract.

Supersedeas denied and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Allen and Mr. Justice Whitford concur.