Town of Fruita v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 February 1905 |
| Parties | TOWN OF FRUITA v. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Mesa County Court; Walter S. Sullivan, Judge.
Petition by George J. D. Williams and others for the disconnection of certain territory from the town of Fruita. Judgment in favor of petitioners, and the town brings error. Reversed.
Isham R. Howze and J. B. Willsea, for plaintiff in error.
Henry R. Rhone and Goudy & Twitchell, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error, as petitioners, filed in the county court of Mesa county their petition, setting forth, among other things, that they were the owners of certain property within the limits of the town of Fruita and on the border thereof, and praying that it be disconnected from the town. The county court found for the petitioners and ordered the tracts disconnected. The case is brought here by writ of error.
The tracts in question are lots numbered 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of Orchard subdivision of the town of Fruita. Lots 58 59, 66, and 67 contain five acres each, and 60, 64, and 65 ten acres each, and are shown on the accompanying plat, which is a tracing of a portion of the plat of Orchard subdivision filed with the transcript.
(Image Omitted)
The orchard subdivision contains about 500 acres, and was included in the town site at the time of the incorporation. It is divided into lots and blocks of various dimensions. The streets of the town proper running east and west, and each alternate street running north and south, are laid out through the subdivision. 'A block in a city is a part of the city inclosed by streets, whether occupied by buildings or composed of vacant lots.' 4 American and English Enc. (2d Ed.) 582. 'The ordinary meaning of the term 'lot,' when used with reference to town or city property, is a subdivision of a block according to the map or survey of such town or city.' 19 American and English Enc. (2d Ed.) 586.
Section 2, c. 106, Acts 1901, found at page 386 of the Session Laws of 1901, under which the proceeding is brought, provides that 'such petition shall show to the court that such tract or tracts of land contain in the aggregate an area of twenty or more acres, upon or adjacent to the border of said city or town, and that petitioners are the owners thereof, describing the land; that no part of such area has been duly platted into lots and blocks as a part of or addition to said city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Littleton v. Wagenblast, 18308
...32 Colo. 309, 310, 76 P. 366, 367. To the same effect are Reichelt v. Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258, 8 P.2d 708; Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132; Town of Sheridan v. Nesbitt, 123 Colo. 121, 227 P.2d 1000. See also McQuillan Municipal Corporation (3rd Ed.) Vol. 2, pp. 326, 328 ......
-
Balanced Rock Scenic Attractions v. Town of Manitou
...be inclosed or surrounded by streets. Olsson v. Topeka, 42 Kan. 709, 21 P. 219; Bowlus v. Iola, 82 Kan. 774, 109 P. 405; Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132; Slater v. Fire & Police Board, 43 Colo. 225, 96 P. 554. There is no such governmental subdivision of a section. Glos v. Wilso......
-
Town of Fletcher v. Smith
... ... towns has been construed in the recent cases of Town of ... Edgewater v. Liebhardt, 32 Colo. 307, 76 P. 366, Town of ... Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132, and Anaconda ... Mining Co. v. Town of Anaconda, 33 Colo. 70, 80 P. 144. Under ... the authority of these ... ...
-
Slater v. Fire & Police Bd. of City & County of Denver
... ... subdivisions of a city, means a square or portion of a city ... inclosed by streets. Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo ... 157, 80 P. 132; 5 Cyc. 717, Harrison v. People, 195 Ill. 466, ... ...