Court Opinion

ID: 9864826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:13:12.48684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:08.296942
License: Public Domain

*552Mr. Justice Butler
specially concurring.
Another contention made by Lindsley deserves consideration. In substance, his claim is that his property has been taken without due process of law in this, that he had no notice of the pendency of the proceeding that resulted in the judgment that the automobile be sold under execution; that he had no opportunity to appear and protect his interest; and that as the statute does not provide for the service upon a mortgagee of a summons or other notice of the proceedings, and expressly provides that the judgment of conviction “shall be a bar to any and all suits for the recovery of any such property so seized, or the value of the same, or for damages alleged to arise by reason of such seizure and detention,” the statute deprives him of his day in court, thus violating the due process clause of the Constitution. This states the plaintiff’s contention somewhat more fully than it is stated by the plaintiff himself.
Though the automobile was ordered sold, the sale was prevented by the sheriff’s seizure under the writ of replevin issued in this case. If the trial court had dismissed the case without a hearing on the merits, holding that under the statute replevin would not lie, a question — perhaps a serious question — would be presented by the record. But there was a full hearing of the case upon the merits. Evidence was introduced by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the court found the issues for the defendant. In other words, in this action the plaintiff had full opportunity — and availed himself of it — to present his case as effectually as he could have done had he appeared in the former proceeding. The court, after hearing all the evidence, held that the fact that the plaintiff was not a party to the violation of the law was no protection against the sale of the automobile pursuant to the express command of the statute. We have decided that that holding was correct. •
As the plaintiff has been deprived of no right by reason *553of the provision of the statute forbidding replevin, he is in no position to question the constitutionality of that provision. Post Printing & Publishing Co. v. City and County of Denver, 68 Colo. 50, 189 Pac. 39.
I am authorized to say that these views meet with the approval of all the justices.
I concur in the decision affirming the judgment, and in the opinion written by Mr. Justice Campbell.