People ex rel. Zalinger v. County Court of City and County of Denver
| Decision Date | 06 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 11141. |
| Citation | 235 P. 370,77 Colo. 172 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. ZALINGER v. COUNTY COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Original petition for writ of prohibition by the People, on the relation of L. N. Zalinger, against the County Court of the City and County of Denver and another.
Writ dismissed.
Granby Hillyer and C. E. Sydner, both of Denver, for petitioner.
Bardwell Hecox, McComb & Strong, and L. D. Hunt, all of Denver, for respondents.
This application invokes the original jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner, a party to a civil action pending in the county court, was required by its order to appear at a certain time and place before a notary public to have his deposition taken as upon cross-examination. At the time fixed the petitioner, who was notified to appear before the notary public, objected to the proceeding upon the grounds that the provision of the Civil Code authorizing the deposition of a witness to be taken in advnace of a trial does not apply where the testimony of a party to the action as on cross-examination is thus sought, and upon the further ground that such a deposition may not be taken in advance of the trial in open court in any event. The refusal of the petitioner to submit to examination being duly reported to the trial court, an order was entered requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Thereupon the petitioner filed in this court this application for a writ of prohibition to stay further action by the county court and the notary public in the premises. In response to a rule of this court to show cause the respondents have filed a demurrer to the petition, and the cause has been submitted for final decision upon the demurrer.
In our constitutional convention there was much discussion before final adoption of that section of our Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to issue original writs. Only a few of the state courts of this country at that time had similar provisions; Wisconsin, Missouri, and Oregon being of the number. The Supreme Courts in those states, before the adoption of this article of our constitutional convention had given construction thereto, and the framers of our organic act and the people in adopting it had in mind such construction. These courts, both before and after the adoption of our Constitution, hold that the writs therein provided for are in the nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonhart v. District Court of Thirteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Sedgwick County, 18429
...should act in the premises rests in its sound discretion; thus, the remedy afforded is not one of right. People ex rel. Zalinger v. County Court, 77 Colo. 172, 235 P. 370. Corrective measures are not within the sweep and coverage of prohibition; correction of error is the function of a writ......
- People ex rel. City and County of Denver v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist.
-
Original Proceedings in the Colorado Supreme Court
...ex rel. Graves, supra note 12. For a capsule reference to the constitutional convention, see, People ex rel. Zalinger v. County Court, 77 Colo. 172, 235 P. 370 (1925). 14. Clark v. Denver & Interurban Railroad, 78 Colo. 48, 239 P. 20 (1925); People ex rel. Lindsley v. District Court, 30 Col......