First Nat. Bank of Greeley v. Minnesota Mines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | 14955. |
| Citation | 121 P.2d 488,109 Colo. 6 |
| Parties | FIRST NAT. BANK OF GREELEY et al. v. MINNESOTA MINES, Inc. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Petition to Vacate Order of Dismissal Denied Jan. 12, 1942.
Error to District Court, Clear Creek County; Robert W. Steele Judge.
Condemnation proceeding by the Minnesota Mines, Inc., against the First National Bank of Greeley, Colo., and others. To review an adverse determination, defendants bring error. On petitioner to vacate an order dismissing the writ of error.
Petitioner denied and order dismissing the writ adhered to.
I. B Melville and Harold G. King, both of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Pershing, Bosworth, Dick & Dawson, and Harold E Popham, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
By this proceeding under the eminent domain act, defendant in error sought to condemn certain of the lands of plaintiff in error. In the district cour in apt time (see Wassenich v Denver, 67 Colo. 456, 186 P. 533), plaintiff in error raised certain objections on constitutional grounds, which challenged the right of defendant in error to condemn, and which, if sustained, would have the effect of defeating the proceeding. The district cour in limine overruled the objections and plaintiff in error sued out a writ of error to have that determination reviewed by this court. July 10 1941, upon the theory that the questioned adjudication was not a final judgment we dismissed the writ on motion of defendant in error. Thereafter plaintiff in error filed a petition to vacate order of dismissal and we permitted oral arguments on the question. Notwithstanding the serious contentions of plaintiff in error, we are satisfied the exigencies under consideration are controlled by Burlington & C. R. Co. v. Colorado Eastern R. Co., 45 Colo. 222, 100 P. 607, 16 Ann.Cas. 1002, wherein we held that in a proceeding under the eminent domain act a district court decision, rendered in limine, holding that the petitioner had constitutional and statutory authority to condemn, was not final, but merely interlocutory, to review which a writ of error would not lie. This rule was reaffirmed in Miller v. Denver, 84 Colo. 397, 270 P. 866. Under these authorities, adverse rulings on the objections now urged by plaintiff in error may be presented for review by a writ of error after the close of the proceedings in the trial court and entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver
...Co., 45 Colo. 222, 100 P. 607, * * *; Miller v. City and County of Denver, 84 Colo. 397, 270 P. 866; First National Bank [of Greeley] v. Minnesota Mines, Inc., 109 Colo. 6, 121 P.2d 488); consequently, complainants had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, and certiorari lies.' (Empha......
-
Cordova v. City of Tucson
...is not appealable and a review thereof must await an appeal from the final judgment. See, e.g., First National Bank of Greeley v. Minnesota Mines, 109 Colo. 6, 121 P.2d 488 (1942); People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Rodoni, 243 Cal.App.2d 771, 52 Cal.Rptr. 857 (1966); Camp Phosphate Co......
-
Big Horn Coal Co. v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co.
...the petitioner's right to condemn, which, of course, finally disposed of the proceeding.' See also First National Bank of Greeley v. Minnesota Mines, Inc., 109 Colo. 6, 121 P.2d 488. In State v. Wood, 219 Ind. 424, 39 N.E.2d 448, 449, this language was used by the appellate court in dismiss......
-
Hertz Driv-Ur-Self System, Inc., of Colorado v. Hendrickson
... ... necessary to consider only the first, namely, that the trial ... court erred in ... ...