Barslund v. Anderson, 14775.

Citation106 Colo. 238,103 P.2d 23
Decision Date27 May 1940
Docket Number14775.
PartiesBARSLUND et al. v. ANDERSON.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Error to District Court, Montrose County; George W. Bruce, Judge.

Action in replevin by H. Rodney Anderson against William Barslund and another. Judgment was entered for plaintiff by default. Judgment denying a motion to set aside the judgment and for new trial, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded with directions.

L. C. Kinikin, of Montrose, for plaintiffs in error.

Bryant & Stubbs, of Montrose, for defendant in error.

YOUNG Justice.

Anderson plaintiff in the district court, held an over-due note of the Barslunds, defendants, secured by a chattel mortgage on certain livestock and farm machinery. Plaintiff, attempting to foreclose said mortgage, took over a part of the mortgaged property on February 1, 1940, but was unable to secure possession of all of it. February second, he instituted an action in replevin. A summons and writ were duly issued and served on the same day, the writ being executed by the sheriff taking the property into his possession. The Barslunds consulted two different attorneys who apparently were unwilling to represent them. They then conferred with a third firm of attorneys with whom they left the papers which had been served upon them. Various negotiations were thereafter entered into between the attorneys for plaintiff and those employed by defendants, and defendants themselves. A redelivery bond was tendered which plaintiff rejected because the sureties thereon were financially irresponsible. No appearance was made by defendants and February 23 the court entered their default, a hearing was had, and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. Findings were made that the plaintiff was entitled to the immediate possession of the property and that the value thereof was $300. The court further found 'that the Plaintiff's damages sustained by reason of the detention of said property by Defendants as set forth in said Complaint is the sum of three hundred dollars ($300.00).' The court then entered judgment against defendants for possession of the property described in the mortgage, for the sum of $300 for the wrongful detention thereof, and for plaintiff's costs in the sum of $20.75.

At this juncture defendants procured other counsel who filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and for a new trial. Stated generally the grounds upon which they sought the new trial were: That they had a partial defense to the note, in that certain payments made thereon had not been credited; that the attorneys employed by them had failed to interpose any defense; and that they are now advised that they have a good and meritorious defense to plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of the alleged defense, other than that of partial payment and that the property was worth more than the amount found by the court, is not disclosed. In the affidavit filed in support of their motion, defendants set forth that because of the judgment for $300 for detention of the property entered against them they had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law or in equity. The court on a hearing denied the motion.

Defendants make the following assignments of error:

'(1) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; in that, the action being in replevin should be for possession and sale, not ownership.
'(2) The judgment is contrary to law, not being in conformity with the Code on replevin.
'(3) The judgment is against the law, departing from the mortgage relied upon, for sale and accounting, and declaring for absolute ownership.
'(4) The court erred in denying defendants motion to set the judgment aside and for an accounting.'

The first assignment of error is without merit. Replevin is a possessory action. Under the defaulted chattel mortgage plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property. What his duties were with respect to the provisions of the chattel mortgage and whether he held the property after obtaining possession as absolute owner or only for the purposes of public or private sale were not involved in the replevin action.

The second assignment of error, that the judgment is contrary to law because not in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure relating to replevin, is good in part. The court found the value of the property to be $300, but entered judgment awarding its possession to plaintiff without giving him in the alternative a money judgment as provided by section 247 of the Code. Since the requirement of an alternative money judgment for the value of the property in case a delivery can not be had is for the benefit of the plaintiff, failure to enter such a judgment does not prejudice the defendant, and of such failure he may not complain. Bank of Akron v. Dole, 25 Colo. 1, 52 P. 673; Code of Civil Procedure, section 221.

Under the foregoing code provisions the court was not authorized to enter other than a nominal judgment for damages for the wrongful detention of the property, whereas judgment was in fact rendered in the substantial sum of $300. In his complaint plaintiff makes no allegations that would permit the admission of evidence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Brennan v. WA Wills, Ltd., 5827.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1959
    ...414, 42 P. 660; Kelly v. Lewis, 38 Colo. 18, 88 P. 388; Illinois Building Co. v. Patterson, 91 Colo. 391, 15 P.2d 699; Barslund v. Anderson, 106 Colo. 238, 103 P.2d 23. And the controlling issue in replevin is the right to immediate possession of the property at the time of the institution ......
  • Metro Nat. Bank v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 83SA404
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • January 23, 1984
    ...in the counterclaim and the demand for relief as constituting a claim for replevin. Replevin is a possessory action. Barslund v. Anderson, 106 Colo. 238, 103 P.2d 23 (1940); Wyman v. McCarthy, 93 Colo. 340, 26 P.2d 245 (1933). A replevin claimant seeks to recover possession of personal prop......
  • Conte v. People, 14772.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 27, 1940

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT