Board of County Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners

9 Colo. 268
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 Colo. 268 (Board of County Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of County Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners, 9 Colo. 268 (Colo. 1886).

Opinion

Elbert, J.

The great range known as the “Sierra Madre” or “Continental Divide,” to which frequent reference must be made in this case, traverses the state from south to north. While its trend is irregular, sweeping far to the west, and then to the east, of a direct northerly line, it both enters and leaves the state substantially at the one hundred and seventh meridian. It constitutes the water-shed between the waters of the Pacific and the waters of the Atlantic flowing into the Gulf. Southward it throws off several spur ranges to the southeast, which mask it from the plains. Northward for a long distance it is the great range fronting the plains. Near the northern extremity of this front stands Long’s peak, rising to an altitude of fourteen thousand two hundred and seventy-one feet, and overlooking the northern, boundary of the state, at a distance of from fifty to sixty miles. Brom this peak, for a distance of about eighteen miles (according to the Hayden surveys and maps), this great chain trends in a northwesterly direction to Richthofen peak, where it bifurcates, throwing off a spur to the north and northwest, known as the “Medicine Bow Range.” The main range turns westward for a distance of forty or forty-five miles, when it again resumes and maintains its general northerly direction to the northern [273]*273boundary of tbe state. Within the embrace of these two ranges lies what is known as the North Park, walled in by the Medicine Bow range upon the east, by the main range upon the south and west, and by a series of secondary mountains and hills upon the north. It- is elliptical in form and a principality in extent, rich in soil, luxuriant in pasturage, and supreme in the grace and beauty of its valleys and the grandeur of its mountain architecture. It holds within its ample compass the abounding springs which feed the head-waters of the North Platte, which here has its rise, and which, gathering together its mountain affluents, forces a passage through the northern rim of the park, on its way to the Gulf. It is contended by. the plaintiffs that this park lies within the boundaries of the county of Grand; by the defendants, within the boundaries of the county of Larimer.

The county of Grand was formed from a portion of the territory of the county of Summit, which, with Larimer and fifteen other counties, constituted the seventeen counties into which the territory was originally divided by the first territorial legislature. This division was made by an act approved November 1, 1861, entitled “An act to define county boundaries and to locate county seats in Colorado territory.” The question is whether, by the terms of this act, the North Park is within the boundaries of the county of Larimer or within the original boundaries of the county of Summit. If the latter, it follows-that it is now within.the boundaries of the county of. Grand.

By reference to the act, it will be noticed that the section establishing the boundaries of Larimer county fixes the southwestern corner on the summit of the Snowy range. The language is: “ Thence west, along the northern boundary of Boulder county, to the summit of the Snowy range.” This is also the northwestern corner of Boulder county, “at ornear the summit of Long’s peak,” as will be seen by reference to section 22 of the act. The [274]*274sentence describing the western boundary of Larimer county is as follows: “Thence [from Long’s peak], in a northerly direction, on said summit, to the northern boundary of the territory.”

'The plaintiffs contend that this fixes the Medicine Bow range, before described, as the western boundary of Larimer county; that, although a spur, it has all the characteristics of a snowy range, and it is the only range northerly. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendants that, in using the term “snowy range,” the legislature intended the Great range or Continental divide, and that, although it has, for quite a distance, as we have seen, a course due westward, it is the monument indicated and must control the course.

The legislative intention in the use of the term “ snowy range,” in defining the boundaries of the county of Larimer, is the leading question, and to it the argument of counsel, and the testimony of witnesses, are largely addressed. The same term, employed in the section describing the boundaries of the county of Summit, is also - to be interpreted, as the eastern and western boundaries of these two counties are supposed to coincide, and the term “snowy range” in both sections to refer to the same boundary line. The argument proceeds upon this hypothesis.

The witnesses are all, or nearly all, early settlers, acquainted with the early history of the country, and many of them prominently identified with it. Their testimony is conflicting. By some it is said that the term “ snowy range ” was applied to any snow-carrying range, with peaks elevated above the snow-line; by others, that it was a term exclusively applied to the range dividing the Atlantic and Pacific waters. We think the preponderance of testimony supports the latter view. It will be seen, however, by reference to the act of the- legislature, that the term is applied not only to the Oontinental divide, but to the great mountain spurs known as the [275]*275Mosquito and Sangre de Christo ranges. If we lay aside the conflicting testimony upon this point, and address ourselves to a consideration of the act itself,— to a comparison of the different sections in which the disputed term occurs,— we think there is sufficient to be found to determine this controversy with reasonable certainty and by established rules.

The term occurs in nine different sections. In the sections establishing the counties of Costilla and Fremont, the term “snowy range” is applied to the Sangre de Christo spur, but the range meant is clearly indicated by the use of the words “Sangre de Christo ” in each» case. In the section establishing the county of Park, the term is applied to the Mosquito spur, but it is designated, as “the snowy range east of the Arkansas river.” In section 32, defining the boundary of Lake county, the term “ snowy range” is applied, without further description, to the Continental divide. The Mosquito range, to which the term “ snowy range ” is applied in section 30, is described in this section as “the range dividing the waters of the Platte and Arkansas rivers.” A noticeable fact is that to the extent that the great western spur (the Sierra la Plata range) is made the southern boundary of this county, it is.described by its local name, and that as soon as the Continental divide is reached, the term “ snowy range ” is again employed as a descriptive term. In the sections fixing the boundaries of Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin, the western boundaries are fixed “ on the summit of the Snowy range,” and here the Continental divide is meant, without dispute. The Continental divide constitutes, in part, the western boundary of the county of Park, at the north, where it is described as “ the Snowy range, dividing the waters of the Platte from the waters of the Blue.”

The legislature having divided substantially all the territory east of the Continental divide into fifteen counties, addressed themselves to a division of the broad [276]*276domain lying west of it, but little known, and with but few settlements. They divided it (excepting a small portion already embraced within the boundaries of the county of Guadaloupe) (Conejos) into the two great counties of Lake and Summit, the former upon the south, the latter upon the north. They are the last two counties established by the act, and in the order named.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Elmore County v. Tallapoosa County
131 So. 552 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Board of County Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners
203 P. 269 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1921)
County of Ouray v. County of San Juan
143 P. 841 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Hollenbeck v. Sykes
17 Colo. 317 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Colo. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-county-commissioners-v-board-of-county-commissioners-colo-1886.