Colorado Reports (Volume 24)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898. Excerpt: ... brief. See Murray v. Hobson, 10 Colo. 66; Mills v. Hobson, 10 Colo. 78; Anderson v. Bartels, 7 Colo. 256; Chever v. Horner, 11 Colo. 68; Smith v. Pipe, 3 Colo. 187; Colo. Cent. R. R. Co., v. Smith, 5 Colo. 160; Cook v. Rice, 2 Colo. 131; Pueblo v. Budd, 19 Colo. 579; Laughlin v. City of Denver, ante, p. 255; 50 Pac. Rep. 917. Counsel for plaintiffs in error on the trial below made the following concession: Defendants' counsel concede that the property in controversy is included within the grant to Mark G. Bradford (then the probate judge) from the United States, and if the deed from Hepburn (then probate judge) to Robinson for the tract west of the river, and from Hepburn to Abrahams for the tract east of the river shall be permitted to be located apart from the original plat of the property referred to in said deeds, that said deeds, if they shall be construed to extend to the thread of the river by the court, will include the property in controversy. This court, in Murray v. Hobson, supra, citing Pipe v. Smith, 4 Colo. 444, has held that parol evidence was admissible to identify the land described in this deed. The only question, therefore, under the foregoing concession would seem to be whether the deeds in question are to be construed as extending to the center of the river the boundaries of the lands therein described. But it is said by counsel that under all the authorities, if the deed of the probate judge is void upon its face, advantage thereof may be taken by one not a beneficiary of the trust, even in an action at law. Upon the contrary, it is strenuously contended by defendant in error that under the admitted facts of this case, in the light of the authorities cited, that mere interlopers are not in a position to raise this question. But if ...