People, for Use and Benefit of Klug v. Corder, 12588.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | 12588. |
| Parties | PEOPLE, for Use and Benefit of KLUG v. CORDER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Weld County; Robert G. Smith, Judge.
Action by the People, for the use and benefit of John P. Klug against H. L. Corder and another. To review a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
S. Harrison White, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
L. Ward Bannister and Samuel M. January, both of Denver, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff, Klug, instituted this action against the defendants Corder, sheriff of Weld county, Colo., and the Maryland Casualty Company of Baltimore, as surety on the sheriff's official bond, to recover of them three times the value of a certain 'farm wagon commonly known as an automobile' which the sheriff had seized under a writ of execution issued upon a judgment against Klug in favor of Corder. Upon the issue of fact raised by the pleadings in a trial by jury a verdict was returned for the defendants, upon which the court rendered judgment dismissing the action and plaintiff is here with this writ of error.
Section 5915, cl. 9, p. 1566, C. L. 1921, provides that 'one farm wagon, cart or dray' shall be exempt from levy and sale upon execution. There is no dispute as to the seizure and sale of the car by the sheriff. It is also undisputed that notice and claim of exemption of Klug and service thereof upon the sheriff were made seasonably and prior to the day fixed for sale. The only question for decision was, and is whether the automobile in question was used by plaintiff as a farm wagon in the sense of the statute.
The case was once Before this court on a question as to the sufficiency of the complaint, the trial court having sustained a demurrer thereto on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. The case is reported under the title: Klug, plaintiff in error, v. H. L. Corder et al., defendants in error, 82 Colo. 318, 259 P. 613. We held the complaint good and remanded the cause for a new trial. The judgment below against plaintiff is here for review by this writ of error.
The plaintiff in error has filed an exhaustive and able brief upon the subject of exemption statutes similar to our own. We are in accord therewith as the law of the case, as was the trial court. Our examination of the record, however convinces us that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court either in its rulings upon evidence or in its instructions to the jury. The jury found that under the evidence the automobile of the plaintiff, which he says is exempt from execution and attachment as a farm wagon, was not used as a farm wagon therefore, not exempt. At the time that our exemption statute was enacted, as early as 1866, automobiles were unknown. In Huddy on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMullen v. Shields
...found for defendants, because the evidence did not show that the automobile was used as an ordinary farm wagon was used. People v. Corder, 91 Colo. 383, 15 P.2d 621. Malone v. Kennedy (Tex. Civ. App.) 272 S.W. 509, 510, the court held that a 3 1/2-ton truck was exempt as a wagon, saying: "T......
- Starkey v. City of Longmont, 12821.