People ex rel. Kindel v. Clerk of District Court of Arapahoe County
| Decision Date | 03 March 1896 |
| Citation | 22 Colo. 280,44 P. 506 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. KINDEL v. CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT ARAPAHOE COUNTY. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Proceeding on relation of George J. Kindel against the clerk of the district court of Arapahoe county. Writ denied.
H. J Hersey, E. F. Richardson, and Henry B. O'Reilly, for relator.
F. A Williams and Bartels & Blood, for respondent.
This application was presented yesterday afternoon upon petition and answer, but the court will determine the application solely upon the petition. It recites, among other things, the institution of a contest for the office of county clerk of Arapahoe county; George J. Kindel being the contestor, and Richard Le Bert the contestee. After issues were joined in the county court, a petition for a change of venue to the district court was filed by contestor. Upon this petition the venue was changed to the Second judicial district of the state of Colorado, that being the district in which the county of Arapahoe is situate. The district court of the Second district is divided into five divisions each presided over by a separate judge, and a rule of court designates the manner in which the business of the court shall be distributed to the several divisions. It provides that the clerk of the court shall number causes in the order in which they are filed, and assign the oldest thereof to division No. 1, the next in order to division No. 2, and so on, in rotation, among the first four divisions above set forth, the fifth division attending solely to criminal business. The petition then alleges the assignment of this case by the clerk to a division to which it did not properly fall; that thereupon counsel for relator, contestor in said suit, immediately filed in said division a motion to have the cause sent to its proper division; that thereafter such proceedings were had upon this motion as resulted in the sending of the cause to another division of said district court, which relator alleges was still not the division to which the cause should have been assigned; that upon said cause reaching said division, which is division 4 of said district court, counsel for contestor presented and read a motion to the said court, asking for a reassignment of said cause according to rule 8 of said court; but that the court disregarding the law in the premises, refused to consider such motion, and of its own motion sent the case to another division of the court, this not being the proper one. Upon the foregoing facts this court is asked for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to assign the cause to the division to which relator alleges it should have been assigned in the first instance. From the foregoing statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mich. Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. Mich. State Tel. Co.
...44 Ala. 361; Ex parte Southern Tel. Co., 73 Ala. 564; Ex parte Williamson, 8 Ark. 424;Early v. Mannix, 15 Cal. 149;People v. Clerk of District Court, 22 Colo. 280, 44 Pac. 506;Shine v. Kenturcky Cent. R. Co., 85 Ky. 177, 3 S. W. 18;State v. Judge, 10 La. Ann. 420;State v. Judge, 12 La. Ann.......
-
State ex rel. West v. Cobb
...1 Cal. 85; State ex rel. v. Choteau Co., 13 Mont. 33; State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217; Com. v. Barroux, 36 Pa. 262; People ex rel. v. Clerk, 22 Colo. 280; 2 Bailey on Jurisdiction, secs. 490, 491; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 404; Brisco v. Com., 11 Pet. 312; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. ......
-
People ex rel. Dickinson v. Bd. of Trade of Chicago
...5 N. D. 359, 66 N. W. 234;Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210;Wheeler v. Irrigation Co., 9 Colo. 248, 11 Pac. 103;People v. Clerk of Dist. Ct. of Arapahoe Co., 22 Colo. 280, 44 Pac. 506;State ex rel. Hopkins v. Cooper Co. Ct., 64 Mo. 170;Com. v. Baroux, 36 Pa. 262; Ex parte Pickett, 24 Ala. 91; Ex ......
-
People ex rel. Kocourek v. City of Chicago
...to a public office, the court would not take jurisdiction; citing the Wisconsin and other cases. See, also, People v. Clerk of Dist. Ct. of Arapahoe Co., 22 Colo. 280, 44 Pac. 506. The constitution of South Dakota is the same, in the respect mentioned, as that of Wisconsin; and in Everitt v......