Sievers v. Garfield County Court
| Decision Date | 14 March 1898 |
| Citation | 11 Colo.App. 147,52 P. 634 |
| Parties | SIEVERS et al. v. GARFIELD COUNTY COURT et al. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Garfield county.
Certiorari on the relation of Henry Sievers and others, against the county court of Garfield county and others. Writ dismissed and relators appeal. Affirmed.
C.W Darrow and John T. Shumate, for appellants.
Edward T. Taylor, for appellees.
In December, 1895, George Teller began proceedings in the county court to condemn a ditch for the purpose of enlargement under the statute. It was owned as to some part of it by the appellants Sievers, and as to other parts of it by other ranchmen, who lived along its line, from near its source in Rock creek to the point where it entered the property belonging to the various appellants. A statement of the various properties through which it ran, the size and character of the ditch, the claims of the Sievers, or the character of the right asserted by Teller is not necessary to either the determination of this appeal or as a basis for our conclusion. What we have said is enough to indicate Teller's claim and that on which his proceeding rested. He owned the ranch below the Sievers' land where, up to the time of his proceedings to condemn, the ditch practically ended. He was an agricultural claimant, and needed the water to irrigate his land. The only available course, other than the construction of a new line which would incumber the properties over which it passed, was the use of that line after it was enlarged. In his petition Teller stated that the amount involved was less than $2,000, which, the petition being otherwise sufficient, would bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the county court. After the proceedings were begun, and the defendants had been brought in and sundry steps taken in the litigation, the appellants filed a petition for certiorari in the district court to restrain the county court from further proceeding with the matter, averring that the county court was without jurisdiction, and contending that this was a proper method to restrain that court from hearing or determining the rights of the parties. After the writ of certiorari was issued, and parties brought in, Teller moved to quash the writ, the court dismissed it, and the matter is brought here by appeal.
The appellants presented a great many questions by their petition for the writ, and have urged many matters on the attention of the court in support of the proposition that the county court was without jurisdiction, and that, therefore, they rightfully sued it out, and might thus prevent further proceeding. The only practical question which we need consider is the jurisdiction of the county court to entertain proceedings in condemnation for the purpose of enlarging a ditch and furnishing a water supply to owners of land either below or along the line of the ditch which has been constructed. We shall not attempt to discuss or consider the various matters urged by the appellants in support of their position, because, as we view it, the whole thing turns on the solitary question of jurisdiction and the right to the writ of certiorari under the existing circumstances. As we look at it, both questions have been resolved adversely to the appellants by the decisions of the supreme court. The cases which will be cited have not only considered the question directly as to the jurisdiction of county courts in such matters, but they have determined cases which were begun in the county court for like objects wherein the jurisdiction was assumed or conceded without question, and the extent and authority of the county court has been so fully considered in the matter that a simple suggestion by the court as to the jurisdiction practically disposes of this appeal. It has been again and again determined that county courts were courts of general jurisdiction, with concurrent authority with the district court, in all matters which were within the limit placed on their jurisdictional authority, and it is assumed and conceded by the supreme court that condemnation proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial