People ex rel. Salomon v. Court of Appeals

• Decision Date: 02 June 1902
• Citation: 69 P. 606,30 Colo. 8
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SALOMON v. COURT OF APPEALS.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

69 P. 606

30 Colo. 8

PEOPLE ex rel. SALOMON v. COURT OF APPEALS.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 2, 1902

CERTIORARI BY the people, on the relation of Adolph Z. Salomon, as executor of the will of Fred Z. Salomon, to review a decision of the court of appeals (67 P. 25) in an action by the executor and others against Frederick L. Martin. Writ denied.

E. T. Wells, John C. Thompson, and John H. Chiles for relator.

Gunnell Chinn & Miller, J. C. Helm, Colburn & Dudley, and C. M Campbell, for respondent.

GABBERT J.

This is an original proceeding in certiorari instituted by relator for the purpose of bringing here for review the judgment of the court of appeals rendered in the case of Salomon v Martin, 67 P. 25. Relator bases his right to such review upon two grounds: (1) The court of appeals rendered a judgment in the cause mentioned without its jurisdiction; (2) that in rendering such decision it refused to be guided or controlled by the law applicable to the case, as declared in the previous decisions of this court. Relator, with others originally brought an action in the district court of El Paso county for the purpose of establishing a vendor's lien upon certain real estate superior to any lien on the same premises of those against whom the action was commenced. The trial court held that the parties bringing the action were not entitled to the lien claimed, and this judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. In support of the proposition that the latter court rendered a judgment without its jurisdiction, counsel for relator assert that, in the pleadings filed by the parties who commenced the action in the district court, it appears the right to the lien claimed was based upon a contract entered into between the owner of the premises and other parties whereby such owner agreed to sell the premises to these parties; that this contract was treated in the complaint as one of sale; and that the defendants recognized by their pleadings it was of this character. Among other reasons assigned by the court of appeals why a vendor's lien was not established, it appears that court held the contract in question was not one of sale, and hence, it is argued by counsel for relator, the court decided the case upon an issue which was not made, thereby deciding a matter which was not submitted to it, and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by rendering a judgment not within the issues. The premise is wrong, and it follows, as of course, that the conclusion deduced from an application of a correct proposition of law is also erroneous. It is true, a court has no power to render a judgment not within the issues. Whether it has exceeded its authority in this respect is not determinable alone from the controverted or uncontroverted questions of fact which may be involved in any case, but from the object of the action. There may be many collateral issues involved which go to make up the main issue between the parties, but the determination of these collateral matters, although erroneous, or what matters of this character are involved, is not without the jurisdiction of the court. If the judgment pronounced is responsive to the relief sought in the action, even though erroneous because some collateral questions were not correctly determined, or is based upon an issue which in fact is not involved, it is not one without the jurisdiction of the court pronouncing it. The real contest between the parties was whether the plaintiffs in error were entitled to a vendor's lien superior to any lien of the defendants in error. In determining this question the vital point may have been whether the contract was or was not one of sale from the owner of...