Town of Edgewater v. Liebhardt
| Decision Date | 04 April 1904 |
| Citation | 76 P. 366,32 Colo. 307 |
| Parties | TOWN OF EDGEWATER v. LIEBHARDT. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Jefferson County Court; Charles McCall, Judge.
Proceedings by G. G. Liebhardt against the town of Edgewater under Laws 1901, p. 387, c. 106, § 3, to have territory detached from the town. From a decree for petitioner the town brings error. Affirmed.
David G. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.
Doud & Fowler, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error filed his petition in the county court of Jefferson county, setting forth that he was then seised in fee of the north one-half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 36, township 3 south, of range 69 west; that the land was then within the corporate limits of the town of Edgewater, and upon, contiguous, and adjacent to the border of said town; that no part of said land had been platted into lots and blocks as a part of addition to said town; that all taxes and assessments lawfully due upon said land up to the time of the presentation of the petition had been fully paid; that the said town of Edgewater had not maintained either street lights or other public utilities for a period of three years, or for any other time whatsoever through or adjoining said tract of land, and praying that said tract be disconnected from the said town. The trial resulted in a decree disconnecting the tract of land from the town. The town officers contest the authority of the county court to disconnect territory from a municipality, and assert that the statute which purports to vest the county court with authority so to do is unconstitutional and void, because it attempts to delegate to the judiciary legislative power. Their counsel say, in support of the assertion that the statute is unconstitutional, that the county court is vested with discretion, and may or may not grant a petition when the facts required by statute are proved to the satisfaction of the court. The portion of the statute which bears directly upon the question now before us is as follows: 'And upon the hearing and proof of the facts set forth in said petition, it shall be determined whether said tract or tracts of land should be disconnected from such city or town, and the court shall enter a decree accordingly.' Section 3, c. 106, p. 387, Laws 1901. This court, in the case of People v. Fleming, 10 Colo. 553, 16 P 298, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enderson v. Hildenbrand
...it would seem as though there might be some discretion on the part of the court but it is held constitutional. In the case of Edgewater v. Leibhardt, supra, the says:--"In the brief of counsel it is taken for granted that the County Court is, under the statute, vested with discretionary pow......
-
Enderson v. Hildenbrand, 4860.
...operation, it does not constitute a delegation of legislative power,” citing In re Fullmer, 33 Utah, 43, 92 P. 768;Town of Edgewater v. Liebhardt, 32 Colo. 307, 76 P. 366;City of Hutchinson v. Leimbach, 68 Kan. 37, 74 P. 598, 63 L. R. A. 630, 104 Am. St. Rep. 384;Young v. Salt Lake City, 24......
-
In re Dist.
...v. City of Randolph, 82 Neb. 520, 118 N. W. 127; Wickham v. City of Alexandria, 23 S. D. 556, 122 N. W. 597; Town of Edgewater v. Liebhardt, 32 Colo. 307, 76 Pac. 366; Young v. Salt Lake City, 24 Utah, 321, 67 Pac. 1066; City of Winfield v. Lynn, 57 Pac. 549;FN1 Eskridge v. City of Emporia,......
-
Fegan v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co.
...1031, 1034. For definitions and interpretations of the word 'should,' see the same dictionary and the cases of Town of Edgewater v. Liebhardt, 32 Colo. 307, 76 P. 366, Foresi v. Hudson Coal Company, 106 Pa.Super, 307, 161 A. 910. When regulations provide that certain things should be done a......