Colorado & S. Ry. Co. v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25392,25392 |
| Citation | 493 P.2d 657,177 Colo. 162 |
| Parties | The COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Inc. and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a/k/a Santa Fe Railway Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Colorado, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Grant, Shafroth, Toll & McHendrie, Willard L. Peck, Denver, Phelps, Fonda, Hays, Farley, Abram & Shaw, Predovich & Ward, Pueblo, for petitioners.
Welborn, Cook, Phipps & Brown, Robert F. Welborn, David W. Furgason, Miles C. Cortez, Jr., Denver, Kettelkamp & Vento, Pueblo, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding by which petitioners, Colorado & Southern Railway and Santa Fe Railway, seek a writ prohibiting the district court from proceeding in an action in eminent domain filed by The Colorado and Wyoming Railway Company, Inc., herein called C&W Company, to condemn an easement to cross over the tracks of petitioners.
The complaint states that the C&W Company has selected a 'suitable place' for the crossing and sets forth the detailed legal description of the property sought to be condemned. Relief requested is immediate possession and use of such cross-over and that the district court determine the amount to be deposited pending later determination of the compensation to be assessed. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the petition, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action asserting that as a condition precedent to any petition being brought in eminent domain, the C&W Company first had to secure an order pursuant to 1969 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 115--4--6(2)(a). The section reads in part:
'The (public utilities) commission shall have power to determine, order, and prescribe, in accordance with the plans and specifications to be approved by it, the just and reasonable manner including the particular point of crossing * * * at which the tracks or other facilities of any railroad corporation may be constructed across the tracks or other facilities of any other railroad corporation * * * at grade, or above or below grade; * * * and to determine, order, and prescribe the terms and conditions of installation and operation, maintenance, and protection of all such crossings which may now or hereafter be constructed * * * to the end, intent, and purpose that accidents may be prevented and the safety of the public promoted.'
The district court denied the motion finding that it did have jurisdiction, and that a cause of action was stated by the C&W Company under 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 50--1--2, which reads in part:
'In all cases where * * * the right to construct or maintain any railroad, spur, or side track * * * has been or shall be conferred by general laws or special charter, upon any * * * corporation, and the compensation to be paid for in respect of property sought to be appropriated or damaged * * * cannot be agreed upon by the parties interested * * * it shall be lawful for the party authorized to take or damage the property So required, to apply to the judge of the district court * * * where the property * * * is situate, by filing * * * a petition, setting forth, by reference * * * a description of the property * * * and praying such judge to cause the compensation to be paid to the owner to be assessed * * *' (Emphasis added.)
Rule to show cause was issued, has been answered, and the matter is now at issue.
The question presented herein is whether the district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter--the land to be acquired. We hold that it does not.
Courts must so act as to give full force and effect when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Dureno, In re
...the court must reconcile them, if possible, to avoid an inconsistent or absurd result. The Colorado and Southern Railway Co., Inc. v. District Court, 177 Colo. 162, 493 P.2d 657 (1972). In interpreting a statute we must be aware of the consequences of a particular construction. Section 2-4-......
-
Larkin v. People, s. 23957
... ... The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error ... Nos. 23957, 24391 ... upreme Court of Colorado, En Banc ... Jan. 24, 1972 ... ...
-
Joel v. Roohi
...the act). And "[w]e will not construe statutes which arein [p]ari materia to lead to absurdities." Colo. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dist. Court, 177 Colo. 162, 166, 493 P.2d 657, 659 (1972); see also Huddleston v. Bd. of Equalization, 31 P.3d 155, 159 (Colo. 2001) ("Statutes should not be read in isol......
-
Joel v. Cross
...the act). And "[w]e will not construe statutes which are in [p]ari materia to lead to absurdities." Colo. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dist. Court, 177 Colo. 162, 166, 493 P.2d 657, 659 (1972) ; see also Huddleston v. Bd. of Equalization, 31 P.3d 155, 159 (Colo.2001) ("Statutes should not be read in iso......
-
CHAPTER 9 ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY CONDEMNATION
...[83] An interesting exception is the decision in Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. District Court In And For The Tenth Judicial Dist., 493 P.2d 657 (Colo. 1972) (en banc), in which the court concluded that obtaining the order of the Public Utilities Commission authorizing the point of a ra......