Laramie Nat. Bank v. Steinhoff

• Decision Date: 03 August 1903
• Citation: 11 Wyo. 290,73 P. 209
• Parties: LARAMIE NAT. BANK OF LARAMIE CITY v. STEINHOFF.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

73 P. 209

11 Wyo. 290

LARAMIE NAT. BANK OF LARAMIE CITY v. STEINHOFF.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 3, 1903.

On rehearing. Former judgment modified.

For former opinion, see 71 P. 992.

CORN C. J.

A rehearing was granted in this case upon the proposition presented by counsel for plaintiff in error, that, as the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of the right of possession at the time the original judgment was rendered, and determined it in favor of the bank, and no proceedings in error were instituted, no reason appears why so much of such judgment as the court had authority to render should be vacated or annulled; that therefore the judgment under consideration should be so modified as to leave the original judgment in force to the extent that it decreed the right of possession at that time to be in the bank, and adjudged the costs against the defendant, Steinhoff.

The briefs of counsel having been specially directed to the question whether the original judgment, as a whole, was properly set aside in this action, the distinction now insisted upon, in a measure, escaped our attention. Counsel for defendant in error relies upon two propositions: First that the court was without jurisdiction to render the original judgment; and, second, that matters have arisen since its rendition which render its enforcement inequitable and unjust.

We have held that, so far as the district court merely adjudicated the question of the right of possession at that time, it acted with jurisdiction. That part of the judgment is therefore not to be set aside upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to render it. Counsel contends that as the judgment was based upon the finding that the bank had the fee-simple title, which it was not competent for the court to find, the title being confessedly still in the government, therefore the judgment itself was void in toto and must give way. But the conclusion does not follow. The court had jurisdiction to determine the question of the right of possession between these parties, and had them before it. Its judgment may have been erroneous, as based upon insufficient evidence or a misconception of the law. But it is not before us, and was not before the district court, upon any proceeding in error for the examination of that question.

Then under the second proposition of defendant in error, that matters have since arisen which render its...