People v. Corder
| Decision Date | 19 September 1927 |
| Docket Number | 11709. |
| Citation | 259 P. 613,82 Colo. 318 |
| Parties | PEOPLE, to Use of KLUG, v. CORDER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Weld County; Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Action by the People, for the use and benefit of John P. Klug against H. L. Corder and another. Judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed with directions.
S Harrison White, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Walter E. Bliss, of Greeley, and Frank J. Mannix, of Denver, for defendants in error.
The court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint of the People ex rel. Klug; they stood by their complaint and bring error.
The action was for treble damages, under the statute, on account of a levy of execution by Corder, sheriff of Weld county, on exempt property; i. e., a five-passenger Buick touring car, alleged in the complaint to be a farm wagon, and to be in the use to carry on Klug's farm business, and to be worth $1,200.
The statute (C. L. § 5915, par. 9) exempts from execution 'one farm wagon. * * *' The defendant in error claims that the farm wagon, under said paragraph 9, cannot exceed $50 in value. The pertinent part of the statute is as follows:
It seems clear to us that the clause 'not exceeding $50 in value' qualifies the words 'other farming implements,' and has no reference to what precedes them; but if we say it refers also to 'farm wagon' we must say that it refers to the plow or harrow, which would be absurd.
We agree with plaintiff in error that the word 'farm wagon' ought to be regarded as including a farm wagon moved by mechanical as well as by animal power. Stichter v. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 223, holds that a Ford truck is exempt as a 'wagon' under the Texas statute, and we see no reason why such a vehicle might not be a farm wagon if used as such; and since the complaint alleges that the automobile in question was a farm wagon, we think that that allegation is of an ultimate fact which must be taken as admitted by the demurrer. If the defendants traverse it, it is a question for the jury.
The result is that we must reverse the judgment, with directions to overrule the demurrer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosko v. Dunbar, 17779
...whether a passenger vehicle used on a farm is a farm wagon and implement exempt from execution is a jury question. People for Use of Klug v. Corder, 82 Colo. 318, 259 P. 613. The Act also violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which expressly......
-
Foster v. Foster
... ... We must take note of the fact ... that the means of locomotion in the country is changing with ... the changing times. The time when our people went about their ... affairs in a spring wagon, a top buggy, a lumber wagon, or ... even a surrey with the top adorned with tassels has about ... was held that a "Model A" Ford was intended in the ... word "wagon" as used in the exemption statutes ... See, also, People v. Corder, 82 Colo. 318, 259 P ... 613; also Patten v. Sturgeon (C.C.A.) 214 F. 65; ... also Stichter v. Southwest Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ ... App.) 258 S.W ... ...
-
McMullen v. Shields
...kind and character this one is, and put to the use that is made of this truck, is included in the exemption statute." In People v. Corder, 82 Colo. 318, 259 P. 613, it was that a complaint alleging that a five-passenger Buick touring car was a farm wagon, stated sufficient facts to constitu......
- People, for Use and Benefit of Klug v. Corder, 12588.