Goodwin v. Colorado Mortgage Inv. Co. of London
110 U.S. 1 (1884)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Goodwin v. Colorado Mortgage Inv. Co. of London, 110 U.S. 1 (1884)

Goodwin v. Colorado Mortgage Investment Company of London

Submitted December 20, 1883

Decided January 7, 1884

110 U.S. 1

Syllabus

1. A certificate signed and acknowledged by the president and secretary of a foreign corporation, and filed with the secretary of state and in the office of the recorder of deeds for the county in which it is proposed to carry on business, stating that

"the principal place where the business shall be carried on in the State of Colorado shall be at Denver, in the County of Arapahoe, in said state, and that the general manager of said corporation, residing at the said principal place of business, is the agent upon whom process may be served in all suits that may be commenced against said corporation,"

is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Constitution and laws of Colorado in that respect.

2. The separate plea of a married woman which sets up the homestead law of Colorado as a defense against an action for the recovery of real estate is bad if it fails to aver that the word " homestead" is written on the margin of the recorded title of the premises occupied as a homestead, as required by law, even if it also aver a defective acknowledgment by the wife.

Action to recover possession of land. The plaintiffs claimed title through a sale under decree of foreclosure of a mortgage

Page 110 U. S. 2

of the premises executed by the defendants. Several defenses were interposed, but the assignment of errors related only to the following. The defendant Elizabeth Goodwin, in her amended separate answer, answered

"That at the time of execution of the said mortgage deed, the plaintiff well knew that said lands and premises were occupied by the said Harrison and Elizabeth as their homestead, and that the said Harrison was a householder, and that this defendant was the lawful wife of the said Harrison and residing with him."

The plaintiff demurred to this plea and the demurrer was sustained. This was one assigned error.

An amended joint answer made the following averments:

"And the said defendants in fact say that the said plaintiff long before and at the time of the execution of the said pretended deed conveyance of the said Harrison Goodwin unto the said David H. Maffat, Jr., was and still is a foreign corporation, not organized or existing under any law of the Colorado, but organized and existing under the statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and being such foreign corporation the said plaintiff, on or about the 29th day of August, A.D. 1877, caused to be filed in the office of the Secretary of the said Colorado and in the office of the recorder of Arapahoe County a certain certificate in words and figures as follows, to-wit:"

" We, the undersigned, president and secretary of the Colorado Mortgage and Investment Company of London (Limited), hereby certify that the principal place where the business of said corporation shall be carried on in the Colorado shall be at Denver, in the County of Arapahoe, in said state, and that the general manager of said corporation residing at the said principal place of business is the agent upon whom process may be served in all suits that may be commenced against said corporation."

" [Here follow the signatures and acknowledgment.]"

" And save as aforesaid the said plaintiff bath never at any time hitherto caused to be filed with the Secretary of the Colorado, nor in the office of the recorder of any county in said state, any certificate signed by the President and secretary of

Page 110 U. S. 3

said plaintiff, or acknowledged, designating the principal place where the business of the said corporation shall be carried on in this state, or any authorized agent in this state, residing at its principal place of business, upon whom process may be served, nor hath plaintiff at any time hereto filed in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the said County of Boulder, any such certificate whatsoever signed by the president or secretary of the said plaintiff, designating the principal place where the business of said plaintiff will be carried on in this state, or any authorized agent or agents in this state, residing at its principal place of business upon whom process may be served -- and the defendants say that the said pretended conveyance of the said Harrison so assumed and pretended to be executed to the said David H. Maffat, Jr., was executed and delivered at the said County of Boulder and not elsewhere, and the moneys therein recited to be payable to the plaintiff, were moneys by the said plaintiff lent to the said Harrison at the said County of Boulder, contrary to the Constitution of the Colorado, and the statute in such case made and provided."

Plaintiffs demurred to all of this answer, save the last paragraph, which demurrer was sustained. This was also assigned as error.

Judgment being rendered for plaintiff, defendants sued out their writ of error.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.