Wall v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 16 October 1888
• Citation: 11 Colo. 515,19 P. 469
• Parties: WALL et al. v. GARRISON et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

19 P. 469

11 Colo. 515

WALL et al. v. GARRISON et al.

Supreme Court of Colorado

October 16, 1888

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Lake county.

Action by David K. Wall and John A. Witter against Emma D. Garrison and A. J. Quate. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Patterson & Thomas, for appellant.

DE FRANCE, C.

David K. Wall and John A. Witter, the plaintiffs, brought this action against Emma D. Garrison and A. J. Quate, the defendants, to recover the possession of five horses, which were alleged in the complaint to be the property of the plaintiffs, and to be wrongfully detained from their possession by the defendants. The action was brought in July, 1882, in the district court of Pitkin county, and was removed to Lake county for trial. The defendants denied the allegations of the complaint, and alleged that they had a lien upon said horses, as stable-keepers, for the sum of $300, for caring for, feeding, and keeping the same in their stables. The plaintiffs claimed these horses under any by virtue of two chattel mortgages, executed and delivered to them by Rockwell and Bicknell, the proprietors of a stage lien between Leadville, in the county of Lake, and Ashcroft in the county of Pitkin,--one under date of February 20 1882, and the other under date of March 15, 1882. These mortgages were given to secure the payment of certain indebtedness therein mentioned, and covered the horses in dispute and other property. The mortgagors remained in possession of the mortgaged property, the mortgages providing therefor; and, subsequently to the execution and record of said mortgages, the mortgagors contracted with the defendants for the care and feed for which the latter claim a lien. Each mortgage contained a condition to the effect that the mortgagees might take possession of the mortgaged property at any time they might deem themselves insecure; and by reason of the failing circumstances of the mortgagors, and by virtue of this insecurity clause, the plaintiffs sought to take possession of the mortgaged goods and chattels, and the mortgagees agreed to deliver such possession over to them; but the defendants, having these five head of horses in their possession, refused to deliver them to the plaintiffs, and by reason of such refusal, and their detention of said horses, this action was brought. A trial was had to the court, a jury having been waived, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed to this court, and ask for a reversal of such judgment. The defendants have failed to make an appearance here, and the cause has been submitted ex parte.

If the defendants were not entitled to the lien claimed by them at the time the action was brought, or if they were so entitled, but their lien was subject to the rights of the plaintiffs under their mortgages, then the judgment, we think, should be reversed; as the evidence was otherwise sufficient to warrant a recovery by the plaintiffs. A livery stable keeper had no lien at common law. Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 487, and cases cited. While the evidence of the defendants shows that they were innkeepers, and that the stables where they kept and cared for the horses in question, as well as other stock for Rockwell and Bicknell, were used in connection with their business as innkeepers, yet it fails to show that either Rockwell or Bicknell was a guest at their inn. The defendants, therefore, had no lien as innkeepers. Grinnell v. Cook, above cited. There is some evidence tending to show that the lien claimed existed by virtue of a...