Scanland v. Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County, 13546.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 13546. |
| Parties | SCANLAND et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Jefferson County; Samuel W. Johnson Judge.
Bill by Carl S. Scanland and others against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, state of Colorado. To review a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
James R. Hoffman, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Oliver Dean and William L. Boatright, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
Action in injunction to restrain the relocating of a public highway. The parties will herein be designated as plaintiffs and defendant, as they appeared in the trial court.
A part of state highway No. 74 is located in Bear Creek Canon in Jefferson county. In July, 1933, a portion of this highway was destroyed by flood. Plaintiff Scanland is the owner of lots 8 to 17 block 1, Overlook Park, which lots abutted on the highway as then located. It appears that March 24, 1934, defendant board brought condemnation suit in the district court against plaintiff Scanland and other defendants, for the purpose of widening and relocating said highway, necessitated by the flood. Scanland was made defendant because he was the owner of property sought to be condemned which was some distance from the lots described in this action. The other plaintiffs Klatt and Walker were lessee and sublessee of the lots described.
The complaint in the condemnation suit alleged that compensation for damages could not be agreed upon between the petitioner and the defendants; that the action was brought under the eminent domain statute, and the improvement sought to be made was under a Federal Aid Project. It appears that the relocation of the highway involved the changing of the channel of Bear creek in such a manner as to place the channel between plaintiffs' property and the highway whereby their means of ingress and egress to the highway would be destroyed.
Plaintiff herein, on March 30, 1934, filed the complaint in this case whereby they sought to enjoin defendant from proceeding with the condemnation action. The defendant demurred to the complaint, and hearing was had upon the application for injunction and upon the defendant's demurrer. The application for injunction was denied, the demurrer sustained, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiffs assign error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation, Inc. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority
...P.2d 1053; Ambrosio v. Baker District, 139 Colo. 437, 340 P.2d 872; Glendale v. Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053; Scanland v. Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.2d 894; Lavelle v. Julesburg, 49 Colo. 290, 112 P. 774. See also, Dunham v. Golden, 31 Colo.App. 433, 504 P.2d 360; Colorado Cen......
-
Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver
...Mill Co., [9 Cir.] 129 F. 312; Suncrest Lumber Co. v. North Carolina Park Commission, D.C., 30 F.2d 121; Scanland v. Board of County Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.2d 894; Sutton v. Village of Morenci, 202 Mich. 91, 167 N.W. 958; Minear v. Plowman, 197 Iowa 1188, 197 N.W. 67; Georgia Indu......
-
Douglas v. State Highway Commission
... ... from District Court, Miami County; Garfield A. Roberds, ... Action ... ...
-
Colorado Central Power Co. v. City of Englewood
...Mill Co. (C.C.A.) 129 F. 312; Suncrest Lumber Co. v. North Carolina Park Commission (D.C.) 30 F.(2d) 121; Scanland v. Board of County Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.(2d) 894; Sutton v. Village of Morenci, 202 Mich. 91, 167 N.W. 958; Minear v. Plowman, 197 Iowa, 1188, 197 N.W. 67; Georgia ......
-
Chapter 3 - § 3.8 • ENJOINING THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
...322 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1958); Colo. Central Power Co. v. City of Englewood, 89 F.2d 233 (10th Cir. 1937); Scanland v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.2d 894 (1935); and Lavelle v. Town of Julesburg, 49 Colo. 290, 112 P. 774 (1911), overruled on other grounds by La Plata Elec. Ass'n v......