Opinion
Charles S. Vigil and David C. Vigil, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Loye & Bangert, Richard W. Bangert, Wheat Ridge, for defendants in error.
COYTE, Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
Plaintiffs, Paul H. Wigton and Adrienne H. Wigton, operate a small automobile repair shop. In January 1964, the defendants, Henry E. Shockley and Gertrude Shockley, requested the plaintiffs to pick up and repair their automobile. The car was picked up and repaired. Part of the bill was paid by the Shockleys, but they did not attempt to retrieve their car or pay the balance due on the bill until two years later. When Shockleys attempted to pick up their car, the Wigtons refused to accept the balance due on the repair bill. They claimed Shockleys owed them two years' storage on the automobile.
This suit was then brought by the plaintiffs to recover the unpaid balance of the repair bill plus storage charges. The defendants denied liability for the storage charges and counterclaimed for damages for conversion, alleging that the plaintiffs had converted the automobile to their own use.
Trial was to the court, which found in plaintiffs' favor. It entered judgment for the unpaid balance on the repair bill plus storage charges and dismissed defendants' claim of conversion.
On appeal Shockleys maintain that conversion was established as a matter of law in this case, and that the trial court erred in finding for plaintiffs on the storage issue.
Essentially, the question is whether or not the evidence at trial supports the findings and judgment. If the evidence presented taken in the light most favorable to the successful party and resolving all issues of credibility in their favor would support the findings made, then such findings are binding on appeal and may not be reversed, even though a reasonable person might have reached different conclusions based upon that same evidence. Alcove's, Inc. v. Pehr, 161 Colo. 268, 421 P.2d 469.
It would serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence presented to the trial court. Needless to say, it was highly disputed. It was for the trier of fact to untangle the mass of contradictory testimony and arrive at a finding of fact. The resolution in this case turns upon the credibility of the various witnesses. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court, and therefore these findings are binding on us on appeal. Merkowitz v. Mahoney, 121 Colo. 38, 215 P.2d 317.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and DUFFORD, JJ., concur.