Case Name: Greig v. Clement et al.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1894-04
Citations: 20 Colo. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: Greig v. Clement et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 167–175

Head Matter:
Greig v. Clement et al.
1. Pleading — Pkoof.
Upon issue joined upon a plea of justification by an officer, it is incumbent upon him to establish his official capacity.
2. Pleading.
The fact that the words “ deputy sheriff” follow the defendant’’^ name in the caption of the complaint, does not makefile action one against' the defendant as deputy sheriff. The word “ as ” not preceding such designation, the presumption is that he is sued as an individual, and the words “ deputy sheriff ” are merely descriptio persones.
3. Same.
Such a pleading as an “Additional Answer” is unknown to the code, but where the plaintiff without questioning it by motion or otherwise in the first instance, joins issue thereon, it makes one of the issues of the case.
4. Bill of Exceptions.
The failure to give notice of a motion for an extension of time in which to tender a bill of exceptions does not necessarily deprive the court of jurisdiction, although it may defeat jurisdiction in the particular case if an appropriate and timely objection be interposed. An objection on this ground after joinder in error and submission of the case upon its merits comes too late to be available.
Error to the District Court of (farfield County.
Action for claim and delivery of personal property. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.
Max Morris, the owner of a certain stock of merchandise in the town of Glenwood Springs, in Garfield county, Colorado, executed a chattel mortgage to plaintiff in error, Greig, upon the property, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes executed by Morris and made payable to plaintiff in error, Greig. This chattel mortgage contains the usual provision authorizing the mortgagee to take possession of the mortgaged property in case he should for any reason feel insecure or unsafe in his security, or in case the property should be attached or taken, or about to be attached or taken by a third party.
Certain creditors of Morris instituted suits against him and caused writs of attachment to be issued. These writs in some way came into the hands of defendant in error Clement, the other defendant in error Kendall, being the sheriff of Garfield county. Clement having served the writs upon the stock of merchandise covered by the Greig mortgage the action of replevin was brought by Greig against both Kendall and Clement. The complaint and cause were entitled “ Greig, plaintiff, v. J. F. Clement, deputy sheriff, and James C. Kendall, sheriff of Garfield county, Colorado.” A joint answer was filed on the part of the defendants in which, after putting in issue nearly all the allegations of the complaint, the defendants by way of further answer justified under the attachment writs. This plea sets up, inter alia :
“ That defendant James C. Kendall is and was at the time of the commencement of this action and at the time of the service of the writ of replevin herein and at all the times hereinafter mentioned the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of the county of Garfield and state of Colorado.
“ That defendant J. F. Clement is and was at all of the said times herein’ mentioned a duly qualified and acting deputy sheriff of said county of Garfield.
“ That on the 6th day of September, A. D. 1888, in a certain suit or civil action then pending in the district court of the ninth judicial district of the state of Colorado, in and for the county of Garfield, wherein Samuel Butler and Isaac Butler, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Butler Brothers, were plaintiffs and Max Morris was defendant, a writ of attachment duly issued out of said district court directed to the sheriff of said Garfield county, commanding him, the said sheriff, to attach and safely keep all the property of said Max Morris, defendant in said action, or so much thereof as might be sufficient to satisfy the demand of said plaintiffs in said action, which said demand was stated in said writ to be the sum of eight hundred and forty-one and dollars.”
And after describing the attachment it is alleged:
“ That the said three several writs of attachment came into the hands of said J. F. Clement, one of the defendants in this action, as deputy sheriff of said county of Garfield, to execute according to law.
“That by virtue of said several writs of attachment said defendant J. F. Clement, as such deputy sheriff as aforesaid, acting for and in the name of defendant J. C. Kendall, sheriff of said county of Garfield, did on the said 6th day of September, A. D. 1888, at the county aforesaid, take the goods and chattels mentioned and described in plaintiff’s complaint herein and levy upon the same by virtue of the said several writs of attachment, as the property of the said Max Morris.”
The replication to this answer contains the following, among other things:
“ Plaintiff for reply to defendant’s further answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint—
“ Admits that at the times mentioned in said further answer, James C. Kendall was the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Garfield county, Colorado.
“ Denies that at the times mentioned in said further answer, or at any other time, or at all, the defendant, J. F. Clement, was a duly or otherwise qualified and acting (deputy) sheriff of said Garfield county.” * ’* *
“ That as to whether the said three several, or any writs of attachment came into the hands of defendant J. F. Clement, as deputy sheriff, or otherwise, this plaintiff has not, and cannot obtain sufficient knowledge or information upon which to base a belief — hut this plaintiff avers the fact to be that the said J. F. Clement was not, at the time mentioned in said further answer, or at any other time, or at all, a deputy, or other sheriff of said Garfield county, lawfully appointed and qualified to act as such deputy sheriff.
“ That as to whether the said defendant J. F. Clement took said goods and chattels as the property of said Max Morris, or otherwise, by virtue of said several, or other, writs of attachment or otherwise, and as to whether he was acting for said defendant James C. Kendall, or otherwise, this plaintiff has not and cannot obtain sufficient knowledge or information upon which to base a belief.”
Mr. Charles H. Toll and Mr. W. M. Maguire, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Thomas, Bryant & Lee and Mr. M. J. Bartley, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Hayt
delivered the opinion of the courL
By the pleadings the official character of the defendant in error, Clement, was put in issue by direct allegation and positive denial. To maintain the plea of justification it was therefore incumbent upon the defendants to establish such official character. They having failed to introduce any proof in support thereof, the plaintiff undertook to prove affirmatively that Clement at the time of the levy was not a deputy sheriff of Garfield county, but the court in response to objections interposed by the defendants excluded all evidence upon this issue. This ruling was based upon the assumption that plaintiff had sued Clement in his capacity as deputy sheriff and was for this reason estopped from denying that he was such an officer. Thereupon plaintiff asked permission to strike out the words "deputy sheriff" after Clement's name in the caption of the amended complaint, this constituting the only reference in this pleading to the official character of the defendant. The motion was denied.
To sustain the plea of justification it is admitted that the official character of Clement is material, but it is argued here, as in the district court that proof of such character was not necessary for the reason as it is claimed that plaintiff had sued him as deputy sheriff. The premise upon which the argument is founded is unsound. The fact that plaintiff in the caption o£ his complaint follows the name of this defendant by the words " deputy sheriff " does not make the action one against the defendant as deputy sheriff. The word as does not precede such official designation and in its absence the presumption is that he is sued as an individual and that the words " deputy sheriff " are merely deseriptio persone». Fryer v. Breeze, 16 Colo. 323.
There is, as we have said, nothing in the body of the complaint to charge him in any official character whatever, and taking the answer and replication we find a distinct issue made upon the official character of this defendant. We have then in addition to the presumption arising from the omission of words showing that Clement is charged as deputy sheriff, which have been held necessary to indicate that the party is sued in an official capacity, a direct issue in the pleadings upon the very point in controversy, i. e., as to whether Clement in seizing the chattels was acting in an official capacity. This was material and essential to the plea of justification. In the absence of proof showing his official character the plea is not sustained. For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
In view of a new trial we deem it necessary to notice a question of pleading raised by the record. This relates to what is termed an "additional answer." Such a pleading is unknown to the code, but as the plaintiff without questioning the pleadings by motion or otherwise in the first instance, joined issue thereon, the court properly held the issue thus made as one of the issues in the case.
The other rulings complained of are not such as are likely to arise upon a new trial and need not be considered.
Judgment reversed.
Reversed.