Archibald v. Thompson

Decision Date01 February 1874
Citation2 Colo. 388
PartiesARCHIBALD v. THOMPSON.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

BELFORD J.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Archibald against Thompson, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful seizure of certain goods belonging to the plaintiff in error. The defendant, Thompson, justified under a writ of attachment sued out of the probate court of Las Animas county, on the 22d day of November, 1872, in a suit then pending, wherein John P. Smith was plaintiff and Archibald was defendant. The only error assigned is the ruling of the court below in allowing the writ of attachment to be read in evidence. The writ was tested and dated November 22, 1872, and made returnable to the February term, 1873. A term of court intervening between the suing out and the return day of the writ, it is claimed by the plaintiff in error that the writ was void and afforded no justification to the officer executing it. Unless the writ is amendable under the eighth section of the attachment act (Rev. Stat. 55), which provides that no writ of attachment shall be quashed on account of any insufficiency, the objection of the plaintiff is well taken. A process actually void, either from a fatal defect in itself or from want of authority to issue it, is wholly insufficient either to pass a right or to justify an act done under it and it may be so treated whenever it comes in question. When however, the process is not void but voidable only, it will furnish a protection to the officer executing it. Levin v. Gilpin, 6 Dana, 229. And on the trial of a cause the court will regard the process as amended, when the defect complained of is of a character to be amended. McBee v Petty, 3 Cold. 178; Buler v. Huddleston, id. 201. To constitute a sufficient writ, it must run in the name of the people; be addressed to the sheriff or constable; signed by the clerk and attested by the seal of the court; it must be certain in its commands and returnable to the first day of the ensuing term of court. If it contains all these requisites, we characterize it as sufficient. If any one is omitted, we adjudge it insufficient. The legislature certainly designed in the use of the word 'insufficiency' to cover more than mere formal or technical defects; such defects in pleadings and proceedings were amendable and curable at common law; without any statute such power was exercised by courts, at all times, to further justice and promote the rights of litigants. It is just as important that a writ should be signed by the clerk as it is that it should be returnable to the first day of the ensuing term, and yet it has been held that such an omission is curable by amendment. Potter v. Smith, 7 R. I. 55; Jump v. Battin, 35 Mo. 193; Budd v. Thompson, 22 Ark. 363. So a clerical error in the date of a writ may be amended. Jackson v. Burling, 5 English, 578. And the teste of writs, whether original or judicial, have almost invariably been held amendable. Whiting v. Bebee, 7 English, 535-6; Ross v. Luther, 4 Cow. 158; Brown v. Alpin, 1 id. 203; Barber v. Smith, 4 Yates, 185; United States v. Camp, 5 How. (Miss.) 516; Shumaker v. Knox, 1 Dallas, 197; Ripley v. Warren, 2 Pick. 592. In Davis v. Wood, 7 Mo. 163, the defendant justified under an execution which did not run in the name of the State as required by statute. Objection was taken on that ground, and the court held, that although the requisites of the statute had not been complied with in that respect, still it was only voidable and would furnish the officer protection.

In the case of Potter v. Smith, supra, the clerk had omitted to attach to the writ the seal of the court, and this omission was held amendable. The court say, 'These amendments are in the discretion of the court, and that discretion has been exercised at different times, and amendment allowed as to all other requisites of a writ; as to the signature of the clerk the direction to the officer for service; the teste of the writ; the statement of the cause of action; the time and place of appearance, and all,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kavanagh v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1912
    ...she was in fact served. Such a misspelling of the name would not stultify the recital in the judgment of due and legal service. Archibald v. Thompson, 2 Colo. 388; Marr v. 3 Colo. 2; Schlacks v. Johnson, 13 Colo.App. 130, 56 P. 673; Smith v. Smith, 13 Colo.App. 295, 57 P. 747; Rich v. Colli......
  • Heaton v. Panhandle Smelting Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1919
    ...etc., 93 Miss. 516, 46 So. 534; Kahn v. Hollander, 140 A.D. 492, 125 N.Y.S. 333; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Danford, 28 Kan. 487; Archibald v. Thompson, 2 Colo. 388; 6 Corpus 183; Emerson v. Thatcher, 6 Kan. App. 325, 51 P. 50; Wilson v. Barbour, 21 Mont. 176, 53 P. 315; Lee v. Smyser, 96 Ky. 36......
  • Goodman v. City of Ft. Collins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 6, 1908
    ...70; In re Plymouth Cordage Co., 135 F. 1000, 68 C.C.A. 434. And this is the settled rule of decision in the courts of Colorado. Archibald v. Thompson, 2 Colo. 388; Lebanon Co. v. Consolidated Co., 6 Colo. 371; Jordan v. Greig, 33 Colo. 360, 378, 80 P. 1045; Southwestern Land Company v. Hick......
  • James River Nat. Bank v. Haas, 6927.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1944
    ...the district court has power to amend it, if in ‘furtherance of justice,’ and ‘on such terms as may be proper.’ In Archibald v. Thompson, 2 Colo. 388, the court states: ‘A writ that is amendable cannot be regarded as void, nor can it be attacked collaterally. It must still have its effect u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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