Jameson v. District Court of City and County of Denver, 15780.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1946 |
| Docket Number | 15780. |
| Citation | 172 P.2d 449,115 Colo. 298 |
| Parties | JAMESON v. DISTRICT COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Robert M. Jameson petitioner, against the District Court of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, the honorable Francis J Knauss, Judge of the court, and William C. Mueller respondents, to review a ruling denying the petitioner's motion for change of venue.
District court directed to grant motion for change of venue.
J. Fred Schneider, of Denver, for petitioner.
Ireland & Ireland and St. George Gordon, all of Denver, for respondent William C. Mueller.
This matter comes here on application and order to show cause as to jurisdiction.
The one question involved is the propriety of the ruling of the trial court denying defendant's motion for change of venue from the City and County of Denver to Grand county, in an action now pending.
In his complaint in that action plaintiff sets out an agreement whereunder his predecessors in title agreed to sell to defendant certain timber located on premises in Grand county Colorado, therein described. In consideration of such sale defendant agreed to observe certain provisions as to the manner of cutting and removing the timber and clearing up trimmings and other debris, and certain restrictions and requirements as to location of working places and use of roads on the land, and defendant covenanted therein that any failure to perform or observe any of these provisions and restrictions should work a forfeiture of the contract at the option of the parties of the first part therein. After setting out the contract plaintiff alleges that the defendant has breached the agreement by failure to cut, fell, trim and remove the timber in accordance with the provisions of the contract and prays that the contract be terminated and rescinded and defendant enjoined from proceeding with his timber operations thereunder and for damages.
Under Rule 116 of our civil procedure, we are not required to consider the question of venue upon such application, but, in view of the importance of determining the question raised and of preventing the delay and expense of re-trial in case the court where the cause is pending be found without jurisdiction, we elect to determine the question now. While in form this is an action to rescind a contract, in substance it is an action to determine title to timber located on land in Grand county. Campbell v. Equitable Securities Co., 12 Colo.App. 544, 56 P. 88, was an action to cancel a deed of release of a deed of trust securing a debt and for appointment of a new trustee, and it was held that the action was one to determine an interest in the mortgaged real estate and that the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shuford v. Anderson
...Securities Co., 12 Colo.App. 544, 56 P. 88 (1899); Kirchhof v. Sheets, 118 Colo. 244, 194 P.2d 320 (1948); Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946). 13 The dissenting opinion argued that there was a mere claim in personam, but that the agreement did not give the joint v......
-
Cherry Hills Farm Court, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.
...Under that statute, "[t]o ‘affect’ is as broad a term as ‘[to determine] a right or interest in.’ " Jameson v. Dist. Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449, 449–50 (1946) (alteration in original); see also Sanctuary House, Inc. v. Krause , 177 P.3d 1256, 1257 (Colo. 2008) (finding that an actio......
-
7 Utes Corp. v. District Court In and For Eighth Judicial Dist. (Jackson County), 84SA333
...115 Colo. 181, 182, 170 P.2d 779, 780 (1946); see Gordon Inv. Co. v. Jones, 123 Colo. 253, 227 P.2d 336 (1951); Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946). An action for damages alone is not one affecting real property. Craft v. Stumpf, 115 Colo. at 182, 170 P.2d at 780; ......
-
Centennial Petroleum, Inc. v. Carter
...real property" must be tried to the county where the property or a substantial part of it is located. In Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946), the court considered a contract where the plaintiff sold timber standing on his land to the defendant. The contract specifi......
-
RULE 98
...492 P.2d 835 (1971). The substance, not the form, of the action must control in ascertaining the proper venue. Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946). In ascertaining the venue of an injunctive proceeding, the court should probe for the primary purpose of the suit. Ci......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...of the importance of determining the question raised and of preventing the delay and expense of a retrial. Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. District Court, 632 P.2d 1017 (Colo. 1981). In an action on contract, it appearing that defendan......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...492 P.2d 835 (1971). The substance, not the form, of the action must control in ascertaining the proper venue. Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946). In ascertaining the venue of an injunctive proceeding, the court should probe for the primary purpose of the suit. Ci......
-
Rule 98 PLACE OF TRIAL.
...492 P.2d 835 (1971). The substance, not the form, of the action must control in ascertaining the proper venue. Jameson v. District Court, 115 Colo. 298, 172 P.2d 449 (1946). In ascertaining the venue of an injunctive proceeding, the court should probe for the primary purpose of the suit. Ci......