Home v. Duff

Decision Date01 December 1881
Citation5 Colo. 574
PartiesHOME ET AL. v. DUFF ET AL.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to County Court of Ouray County.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Messrs. WM. STORY, GEO. W. ANDREWS and ENOS MILES, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. JOHN P. BROCKWAY, for defendants in error.

ELBERT, C. J.

The constitution provides that county courts shall not have jurisdiction in any case where the debt, damage or claim, or value of property involved, shall exceed $2,000, except in cases relating to the settlement of estates of deceased persons.

The general laws provide that: 'The county courts of the several counties of this State shall hereafter have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in all civil actions, suits and proceedings whatsoever, where the debt, damage or claim, or the value of the property involved, shall not exceed $2,000, except as otherwise provided in this act.'

Section 2 provides: 'In order to give said courts jurisdiction in any action, suit or proceeding, the complaint, or complaints, shall state that the value of the property in controversy, or the amount involved, for which relief is sought in such action, etc., does not exceed the said sum of $2,000.' General Laws, p. 253.

The property in controversy in this action is a certain mining claim, to which plaintiffs below allege a possessory title, to recover possession of which, with damages for detention, this action was brought.

There is no allegation that the value of the property does not exceed two thousand dollars. The statute makes such an allegation essential, 'in order to give the county courts jurisdiction in any action, suit or proceeding.'

For want of this or an equivalent allegation in this case, the jurisdiction of the county court does not affirmatively appear, and the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nelson v. Chittenden
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1912
    ... ... Had the ... judgment been for the plaintiffs on this complaint, it would ... have to be reversed for this reason. Home et al. v. Duff et ... al., 5 Colo. 574; Learned v. Tritch et al., 6 Colo. 432 ... The ... question of the jurisdictional averment is ... ...
  • Behymer v. Nordloh
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1889
    ...and nature of the debt sued for' was mandatory, and that its omission was a fatal jurisdictional defect. The doctrine announced in Home v. Duff, 5 Colo. 574, and Smith v. 6 Colo. 388, relating to courts of record, bears a close analogy to that contended for by the appellants in this action,......
  • Bloomer v. Jones
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 1912
    ... ... Colo.App. 407] does not exceed the said sum of two thousand ... (2,000) dollars," etc ... Home et ... al. v. Duff et al., 5 Colo. 574, involved the title to mining ... property; the case having been tried in the county court. The ... Supreme ... ...
  • Greene v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1912
    ... ... the case brought in such tribunal is within the jurisdiction ... of the court. Learned v. Tritch, 6 Colo. 432; Home v. Duff, 5 ... Colo. 574 ... There ... is nothing, however, in the section to which we have referred ... that indicates an intention to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT