People ex rel. Loveland & Greeley Ir. & Land Co. v. District Court of Larimer County

11 Colo. 574
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedOctober 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 11 Colo. 574 (People ex rel. Loveland & Greeley Ir. & Land Co. v. District Court of Larimer County) 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
People ex rel. Loveland & Greeley Ir. & Land Co. v. District Court of Larimer County, 11 Colo. 574 (Colo. 1888).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By the petition presented for pur consideration, it is shown that a certain civil action is pending in the district court of Larimer county; that petitioner, who is defendant in said action,'objected to proceeding therein on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter; that the court overruled this objection, and is now about to adjudicate the cause on the merits. Petitioner asks for an original writ of prohibition from this court, commanding the court below to desist from further action in the premises. Petitioner’s objection may be examined upon a review of the final judgment on appeal or error. Therefore he has an adequate remedy at law, and no sufficient ground for allowing the writ is presented. High, Extr. Bern. § 771, and citation. Were we to entertain the application in this case, we could not well refuse to do likewise in other civil actions, where a similar question of jurisdiction had been raised in the court below, and there determined in the same manner. Thus, prohibition would.be largely substituted for appeal and error as a method of reviewing rulings relating to jurisdiction. Extraordinary cases may arise where, in the exercise of that “sound discretion ” always possessed by courts in connection with the writ of prohibition, it will be allowed for the purpose of considering rulings like the one in question. Such a case was People v. District Court, 6 Colo. 534, cited hy counsel. In that case, though the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, petitioners had been adjudged guilty of contempt, and final judgment was about to be pronounced which might include imprisonment, and thus deprive them of their personal liberty. The petition must be denied.

Petition denied.

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

Related

COLORADO STATE COUN. OF CARPENTERS v. District Court
392 P.2d 601 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1964)
Scheer v. District Court
363 P.2d 1059 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1961)
People Ex Rel. Winbourn v. District Court Eighth District
287 P. 849 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1930)
Olden v. Paxton
150 P. 40 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1915)
People ex rel. Adams v. District Court
29 Colo. 1 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1901)
People ex rel. Long v. District Court
28 Colo. 161 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1900)
Louden Irrigating Canal Co. v. Handy Ditch Co.
22 Colo. 102 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Walker v. District Court
35 P. 982 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1894)
Walcott v. Wells
24 P. 867 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Colo. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-loveland-greeley-ir-land-co-v-district-court-of-colo-1888.