Cofield v. McClellan
| Decision Date | 01 February 1871 |
| Citation | 1 Colo. 370 |
| Parties | COFIELD v. McCLELLAN et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Arapahoe County.
Mr ALFRED SAYRE and Mr. H. R. HUNT, for appellant.
Mr S.E. BROWNE and Mr. G. W. PURKINS, for appellee.
The act for the relief of the citizens of Denver, in the territory of Colorado (13 Statute at Large, 94), authorizes the probate judge of Arapahoe county to enter certain specified lands the site of the city, in trust for the occupants and the bona fide owners of improvements thereon, and declares in substance that the execution of the provisions shall be controlled by the provisions of 'An act for the relief of the citizens of towns upon lands of the United States, under certain circumstances,' approved May 23, 1844. This latter act (5 Statutes at Large, 657), provides, that, upon the entry, in pursuance of its provisions, of any town site upon the public domain, the execution of the trust for the occupants therein created shall be conducted under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the State or territory within which the same is situated.
In pursuance of this delegation, the legislature of this territory, by the act of March 11, 1864 (Laws 1864, p. 139), had, in advance of the passage of the act of congress for the relief of the citizens of Denver, prescribed rules and regulations for the administration of the trust, in case of the entry thereafter of any town site, in pursuance of the act of congress of May 23, 1844.
There can be little question, we think, that, upon the entry of the town site of Denver (which was made in pursuance of the act of May 28, 1864), the act of the territorial legislature came into application and governed the trustee in the disposal of the lots within the town site; and, in order to the determination of this case, it is necessary, therefore, to refer to the provisions of that act.
By this act, then, it was provided that, in case of the entry of any town site under the act of congress, May 23, 1844, the corporate authorities or the probate judge making such entry should, within thirty days, give notice thereof by posting in three public places within the town, and by publication in a newspaper printed and published within the county; and by the fourth section it was provided, that 'each and every person or association, or company for persons claiming to be an occupant or occupants, or to have possession, or to be entitled to the occupancy or possession of such lands, or to any lot, block, share or parcel thereof, shall, within ninety days after the first publication of such notice, in person or by his, her or their duly authorized agent or attorney, sign a statement in writing containing an accurate description of the particular parcel or parts of land in which he, she or they claim to have an interest and the specific right, interest or estate therein, which he, she or they claim to be entitled to receive, and delivery the same to or into the office of such corporate authorities, judge or judges; and all persons failing to deliver such statement within the time specified in this section shall be forever barred the right of claiming or recovering such lands or any interest or estate therein, or in any part, parcel or share thereof,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. North Ogden City
...the trust." The court then cites and discusses many cases most of which will herein be cited, and distinguishes the case of Cofield v. McClellan, 1 Colo. 370, on grounds that in that case the claimant had lost possession of the property, and continues: "* * * The act of congress grants an u......
-
City of Pueblo v. Budd
...for whom it is intended of any benefits of the trust.' The case of Cofield v. McClellan, decided by this court in 1871, and reported in 1 Colo. 370, and afterwards affirmed by the supreme court of the States in 16 Wall. 331, is relied on as establishing the doctrine that a failure to file t......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.5 • TOWNSITES
...townsite to probate judge rather than "corporate authorities"); Rice v. Goodwin, 30 P. 330 (Colo. App. 1892).[263] Cofield v. McClellan, 1 Colo. 370 (1871), aff'd, 83 U.S. 331 (1872); Tucker v. McCoy, 3 Colo. 284 (1877). But see Webber v. Petty, 29 P. 1016 (Colo. App. 1892): It is very doub......