CO Code § 30-10-515 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 30 - Government - County|Article 10 - County Officers|Part 5 - Sheriff|§ 30-10-515. Sheriff to Execute Writs - Attend Court

 The sheriff, in person or by his undersheriff or deputy, shall serve and execute, according to law, all processes, writs, precepts, and orders issued or made by lawful authority and to him directed, and shall serve the several courts of record held in his county.   History. Source: G.L. § 496. G.S. § 600. R.S. 08: § 1283. C.L. § 8758. CSA: C. 45, § 105. CRS 53: § 35-5-15 . C.R.S. 1963: § 35-5-15 .    Cross references:   For sheriff's duty to serve on tender of fee, see § 30-1-106 .   ANNOTATION   A sheriff is an officer of the court charged with the duty of carrying out the orders and decrees of the court. Struble v. Barger, 128 Colo. 188 , 261 P.2d 497 (1953).   But sheriffs are not required to be learned in the law and when the sheriff obeys the order of the judge, he is not liable for so doing. Struble v. Barger, 128 Colo. 188 , 261 P.2d 497 (1953).   Because the sheriff is ”an executive officer, whose sole duty is to execute, and not to decide on the truth or sufficiency of the processes committed to him for service“. Struble v. Barger, 128 Colo. 188 , 261 P.2d 497 (1953).   Also, the sheriff is protected because it would be inequitable and unjust to hold him responsible for acts of others over whom he has no control and for defects of which he had no notice; to hold otherwise would mean that the officer must act at his peril or delay until he has had an opportunity to search out legal niceties of procedure or substantive law. Struble v. Barger, 128 Colo. 188 , 261 P.2d 497 (1953).   In the execution of process, the power possessed by the sheriff is conferred by the statutes, and no power exists in him except such as is expressly so conferred or may be fairly implied. McArthur v. Boynton, 19 Colo. App. 234, 74 P. 540 (1903).   The sheriff is the only officer to whom processes, writs, and orders of courts may be directed. Blitz v. Moran, 17 Colo. App. 253, 67 P. 1020 (1902).   In a judicial foreclosure of a mortgage the sheriff alone is authorized to execute the decree of foreclosure and sell the land, and it is error for the court to appoint a commissioner, other than the sheriff, to make such foreclosure sale, where such appointment is at the time objected to. Blitz v. Moran, 17 Colo. App. 253, 67 P. 1020 (1902).   An officer cannot execute process unless it is directed to him for service, or to the class of officers to which he belongs, and no statute authorized the execution of process issuing from justices' courts in civil actions, by sheriffs or their deputies, as such. Porter v. Stapp, 6 Colo. 32 (1881).   Where a writ of attachment directed to the sheriff of one county was attempted to be executed by the sheriff of another county levying it upon property in his county, the levy was void and could not be cured by amendment after the attempted levy by changing the direction of the writ to the county in which the levy was made. McArthur v. Boynton, 19 Colo. App. 234, 74 P. 540 (1903).   Since a distraint warrant was a nonjudicial process, precept, or order made by lawful authority, it was the duty of the sheriff to serve and execute the same according to law. Goldsmith v. McAnally, 92 Colo. 384 , 20 P.2d 1009 (1933).   And the issuance of a distraint warrant did not constitute a delegation of power to collect by the treasurer to the sheriff; in rendering the services, the sheriff merely acted as a peace officer in the performance of his duty. Goldsmith v. McAnally, 92 Colo. 384 , 20 P.2d 1009 (1933).   A scire facias or summons to hear errors issued by the clerk of the supreme court must be directed to the sheriff of the county where the defendant in error resides or may be found, and no other person than such sheriff or his authorized deputy has authority to serve such summons; an attempted service of such summons made by a person not authorized by law to make such service is a nullity. Wellington v. Beck, 29 Colo. 73 , 66 P. 881 (1901).   Applied in Tihonovich v. Williams, 196 Colo. 144 , 582 P.2d 1051 (1978).