City of Pueblo v. Stanton

45 Colo. 523
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1909
DocketNo. 5535; No. 3210 C. A.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 45 Colo. 523 (City of Pueblo v. Stanton) 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
City of Pueblo v. Stanton, 45 Colo. 523 (Colo. 1909).

Opinion

Chiee Justice Steele

delivered the opinion of the court:

Before the final passage of an ordinance of the city of Pueblo, but after it had reached such a stage in its passage that the proposed ordinance was published in a newspaper of the city, the owners of a certain tract of land sought to be annexed to the city by the proposed, ordinance, secured, after notice and hearing, a temporary writ of injunction restraining the city authorities from proceeding further in the passage and adoption of the ordinance; and, upon the final hearing thereof, the said temporary writ was made permanent. The facts necessary for a determination of the question involved are as follows: . A tract of land known as the Stanton and Chilcott tract lies in what may be termed the heart of the. city of Pueblo, but it has never been platted into lots and blocks, and the city has not, by ordinance or otherwise, defined the boundaries of the city so as to include this tract within the boundaries; that is, the tract is not surrounded by the boundary lines of the city. The purpose of the ordinance was to annex 'this tract to the city. The accompanying plat, filed with appellant’s brief, shows the tract in question and lands adjacent, and is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of a discussion of the questions presented. The land lying north of this tract, and designated on the plat as Park Property, is owned by the city, and was acquired by the city for park purposes; but no act of the city expressly annexing the property has been taken. The property, at the time it was acquired, was without the limits of the city. One of the witnesses connected with the city engineer’s office of the city testified that the boundary lines of the city extended from a point east of the Stanton and Chilcott tract to the northeast corner thereof,

[525]*525

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

Related

Incorporation of Eastridge v. City of Aurora
601 P.2d 1374 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1979)
BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. City and County of Denver
459 P.2d 292 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1969)
City and County of Denver v. Holmes
400 P.2d 901 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1965)
City and County of Denver v. Sweet
329 P.2d 441 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1958)
Ziebell v. Village of Posen
257 Ill. App. 32 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1930)
Red River Valley Brick Co. v. City of Grand Forks
145 N.W. 725 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Scott v. Stutheit
21 Colo. App. 28 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Colo. 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-pueblo-v-stanton-colo-1909.