First National Bank of Englewood v. District Court

Supreme Court of Colorado

First National Bank of Englewood v. District Court

432 P.2d 1, 164 Colo. 9, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 741

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedOctober 2, 1967

DocketNo. 22814

StatusPublished

This text of 432 P.2d 1 (First National Bank of Englewood v. District Court) 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

First National Bank of Englewood v. District Court, 432 P.2d 1, 164 Colo. 9, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 741 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding.

On the petition as presented we deemed it advisable to issue a rule to the respondent judge to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted. Upon receipt of the answer to the show cause order and the matter now being at issue, it is apparent from what now has been fully revealed as the problem involved, that the rule to show cause was improvidently issued and we should not have granted the petition. We have been favored with oral argument, and we now conclude that the rule should be discharged under the authority of Leonhart v. District Court, 138 Colo. 1, 329 P.2d 781. We adopt therefrom this pertinent language:

“* * * correction of error is the function of a writ of error. A trial court has the power to render a right as well as a wrong decision. ‘Prohibition may never be used to restrain a trial court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter from proceeding to a final conclusion. Nor may it be used to restrain a trial court from committing error in deciding a question properly before it; it may not be used in lieu of a writ of error.’ Prinster et al v. District Court, decided May 17, 1958, 137 Colo. 393, 325 P.2d 938.”

The rule is discharged.

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

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding.

On the petition as presented we deemed it advisable to issue a rule to the respondent judge to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted. Upon receipt of the answer to the show cause order and the matter now being at issue, it is apparent from what now has been fully revealed as the problem involved, that the rule to show cause was improvidently issued and we should not have granted the petition. We have been favored with oral argument, and we now conclude that the rule should be discharged under the authority of Leonhart v. District Court, 138 Colo. 1, 329 P.2d 781. We adopt therefrom this pertinent language:

“* * * correction of error is the function of a writ of error. A trial court has the power to render a right as well as a wrong decision. ‘Prohibition may never be used to restrain a trial court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter from proceeding to a final conclusion. Nor may it be used to restrain a trial court from committing error in deciding a question properly before it; it may not be used in lieu of a writ of error.’ Prinster et al v. District Court, decided May 17, 1958, 137 Colo. 393, 325 P.2d 938.”

The rule is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 P.2d 1, 164 Colo. 9, 1967 Colo. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-englewood-v-district-court-colo-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack