Laizure v. Baker, 13094.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | 13094. |
| Citation | 91 Colo. 48,11 P.2d 560 |
| Parties | LAIZURE v. BAKER, County Judge. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Original application by Chester M. Laizure for writ of mandamus commanding George B. Baker, Judge of the County Court of Pueblo County, to sign a decree or certificate of divorce.
Petition denied.
V. N. Stinson and C. V. Marmaduke, Jr., both of Pueblo, for petitioner.
Chester M. Laizure petitions this court for a writ of mandamus commanding the Honorable George B. Baker, as judge of the county court of Pueblo county, to sign a decree or certificate of divorce.
From the petition it appears that Bertha M. Laizure sued the petitioner in that court for a divorce; that the court found in her favor and made and signed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were duly filed with the clerk of the court; that within six months thereafter the wife filed an application to set aside the findings and conclusions and to dismiss the suit, on the ground that she had been defrauded into applying for a divorce, and had acted under a misapprehension as to the facts; that, for some reason that does not appear, the court denied her application; that after the expiration of the six months, Laizure applied to the court to sign a decree of divorce, or to sign a certificate showing that the parties were divorced by operation of law; and that his application was denied.
Our rule 57 provides: 'In any application made to the court for a writ of * * * mandamus * * * to be issued in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and for which an application might have been lawfully made to some other court in the first instance the petition shall, in addition to the matter necessary to support such application, also set forth the circumstances which render it necessary or proper that the writ should issue from this court, and not from such other court.' The petition states no reason why application for the writ was not made to the district court or way the writ should issue from this court. It appears however, from the brief filed in support of the application that counsel for the petitioner believe that a district court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to a county court in a divorce case.
1. Section 342, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that: 'The writ of mandamus may be issued * * * by any court of record.' A district court, being a court of record, has power to issue the writ in proper cases.
2. But it is said that a county court is a superior court of general jurisdiction, and therefore does not come within section 342 of the Code, for that section permits the issuance of a writ of mandamus to an 'inferior tribunal' only.
The word 'inferior' is used, in law, in different senses. The words, 'inferior courts,' also are used, in law in different senses. Thus, the words have been applied to courts of special and limited authority whose judgments do not import verity, and whose jurisdiction must appear on the face of the proceedings in order to give validity to their judgments. Cole v. Marvin, 98 Or. 175, 193 P. 828; Kirkwood v. Washington County, 32 Or. 568, 52 P. 568. But the words are also used in quite another sense, namely, as indicating the relative rank and authority of courts. Swift v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 64 Mich. 479, 31 N.W. 434; State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192; Bailey v. Winn, 113 Mo. 155, 20 S.W. 21; Ex parte Orr, 51 Ala. 42. That is the sense in which the words are used in section 2, article 6, of the State Constitution, granting to this court a general superintending control over all 'inferior courts.' Mitchell v. Bay Probate Judge, 155 Mich. 550, 119 N.W. 916. And that is the sense in which the words are to be understood when used with reference to the issuance of writs of mandamus. The power of this court to issue original writs comes from the Constitution, and the court may conform to either the Code or the common-law practice. People ex rel. Barnum v. District Court, 74 Colo. 48, 218 P. 912. The common-law practice, like that under the Code, permits the direction of writs of mandamus to inferior courts only. 18 R.C.L., p. 87. Notwithstanding the fact that for most purposes district courts are superior courts of general jurisdiction, this court has the unquestioned power, which it has exercised repeatedly, to direct writs of mandamus to those courts as inferior courts. So, also, for some purposes, county courts are superior courts of general jurisdiction. Terry v. Wright, 9 Colo. App. 11, 47 P. 905. And see Hughes v. Cummings, 7 Colo. 138, 141, 2 P. 289. But, for the purpose of mandamus, they are inferior tribunals to which writs of mandamus may issue from this court and from district courts. We have upheld such a writ issued by a district court to a county court to compel the issuance of an execution on an unsatisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...trial courts were courts of record. The district courts and county courts were both courts of record. See Laizure v. Baker, 91 Colo. 48, 50-51, 11 P.2d 560, 561 (1932) (district courts are courts of record); Weiss-Chapman Drug Co. v. People, 39 Colo. 374, 376, 89 P. 778, 779 (1907) (distric......
-
Lehman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.
...Carmichael, 251 Ala. 57, 36 So.2d 457 (1948); Sanders v. State, 55 Ala. 42 (1876); Ex parte Orr, 51 Ala. 42 (1874); Laizure v. Baker, 91 Colo. 48, 11 P.2d 560 (1932); State v. Sullivan, 95 Fla. 191, 116 So. 255 (1928); State ex rel. Gannon v. Lake Circuit Court, 223 Ind. 375, 61 N.E.2d 168 ......
- Wold v. City of Boulder, 12705.
-
Laizure v. Baker, 13147.
...his action was dismissed. For further facts essential to a full comprehension of the following, see our opinion in that case. Laizure v. Baker (Colo.) 11 P.2d 560. simple question here presented is: 'Can the guilty party in a divorce action maintain mandamus to compel the court to enter a f......