Wagner v. Johnson

247 P. 1058, 79 Colo. 664, 1926 Colo. LEXIS 420
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJuly 6, 1926
DocketNo. 11,605.
StatusPublished

This text of 247 P. 1058 (Wagner v. Johnson) 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
Wagner v. Johnson, 247 P. 1058, 79 Colo. 664, 1926 Colo. LEXIS 420 (Colo. 1926).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

Wagner was nonsuited, brings error, and moves for a supersedeas. The action was to enjoin execution of a justice’s judgment rendered against Wagner in favor of Mrs. Johnson for possession of certain land, for $300 damages, with $100 attorney’s fees and costs.

*665 The plaintiff in error claims that the justice’s judgment is void for want of jurisdiction for several reasons, one of which we think is good, hut although, if a judgment is not merely voidable, but void its execution may be enjoined in equity (San Juan etc., Co. v. Finch, 6 Colo. 214; Smith v. Morrill, 12 Colo. App. 233, 241, 55 Pac. 824; Wilson v. Hawthorne, 14 Colo. 530, 533, 24 Pac. 548, 20 Am. St. Rep. 290) yet, to justify such injunction, there must be equity in the plaintiff’s case. A mere defect of jurisdiction is not enough; there must be a righteous defense to the action which produced the judgment itself. Sweet v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 59 Colo. 131, 147 Pac. 669; Richardson Drug Co. v. Dunagan, 8 Colo. App. 308, 319, 46 Pac. 227; Fisher v. Greene, 5 Colo. 541, 560; Rogers v. Bruce, 69 Colo. 298, 193 Pac. 1076.

No equity is shown here. There is no evidence but that Wagner owes all or more than the judgment against him, and none that the judgment for possession is not just and right; the equitable relief, therefore, was rightly denied, and he should be left to whatever legal rights he may have.

Supersedeas denied and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Allen and Mr. Justice Whitford concur.

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

Related

Fisher v. Greene
5 Colo. 541 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1881)
San Juan & St. Louis Mining & Smelting Co. v. Finch
6 Colo. 214 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1882)
Wilson v. Hawthorne
14 Colo. 530 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)
Sweet v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad
59 Colo. 131 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1915)
Rogers v. Bruce
193 P. 1076 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1920)
Richardson Drug Co. v. Dunagan
8 Colo. App. 308 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Smith v. Morrill
12 Colo. App. 233 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 P. 1058, 79 Colo. 664, 1926 Colo. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-johnson-colo-1926.