Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver
Decision Date | 17 March 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 17929,17929 |
Citation | 322 P.2d 1053,137 Colo. 188 |
Parties | TOWN OF GLENDALE, a municipal corporation, Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Cranston & Arthur, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
John C. Banks, Horace N. Hawkins, Jr., Earl T. Thrasher, Hans W. Johnson, Denver, for defendant in error.
This cause is before this court on writ of error. In the court below the City and County of Denver brought an action in the district court of Arapahoe County against a large number of defendants including the plaintiff in error, seeking to acquire by condemnation certain parcels of land described in the petition, and prayed for title to and possession of needed rights of ways or easements through such lands, and through the public streets of the Town of Glendale for the construction, operation and maintenance of sanitary and storm sewers and appurtenances thereof.
We will refer to the plaintiff in error as Glendale and to the defendant in error as Denver. The other defendants in the action in the court below are not parties to this writ of error.
At the time of filing its petition in eminent domain, Denver also filed a petition for immediate possession of the property and rights of way sought. On the date of the hearing for immediate possession, Glendale filed an answer generally denying Denver's right to the relief sought. Glendale asserted that before any rights could be acquired by Denver the permission of Glendale should be obtained pursuant to C.R.S. 139-52-2(2). By counterclaim Glendale asked the court for injunctive relief 'enjoining and restraining the petitioner [Denver] herein from constructing, operating or maintaining any sewerage facilities within the territorial limits of this Respondent [Glendale], and from taking any action to acquire any property for such purpose by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, or otherwise, * * *.' Other allegations of its counterclaim averred that Denver had not negotiated in good faith with Glendale for the rights sought to be acquired and had not otherwise exhausted its administrative remedy.
To the orders of the trial court denying a temporary injunction and granting Denver temporary possession, Glendale brings the matter to this court by writ of error.
Questions to be determined.
First: Is writ of error the proper procedure to review an interlocutory order of the district court granting immediate possession in eminent domain?
This question is answered in the negative.
An order for temporary possession as interlocutory and not a final judgment or final determination of the action. Interlocutory orders are not reviewable by writ of error. In Burlington & Colorado Railroad Co. v. Colorado Eastern Railroad Co., 45 Colo. 222, 100 P. 607, the syllabus enunciating the clear rule on appeals reads:
'Appeals-When Allowed--In proceedings under the Eminent Domain act, an order or decision of the district court that petitioner is endowed with the powers of the act and may lawfully acquire by this method the lands described, is interlocutory; an appeal lies only where the damages have been ascertained and the finding approved by the court.'
The court in the body of the decision said:
'Our statute and our practice discourage the review of a cause piecemeal. * * *'
The court further said:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In Vandy's Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633, 634, this court said:
(Emphasis supplied).
Again in Swift v. Smith, 119 Colo. 126, at page 139, 201 P.2d 609, at page 616, dealing directly with the matter of immediate possession, the court stated quite clearly:
'The order for temporary [sic] possession was clearly interlocutory, and a writ of error did not lie to review the same (Burlington & Colorado R. Co. v. Colorado Eastern R. Co., 45 Colo. 222, 100 P. 607, * * *; Miller v. City and County of Denver, 84 Colo. 397, 270 P. 866; First National Bank [of Greeley] v. Minnesota Mines, Inc., 109 Colo. 6, 121 P.2d 488); consequently, complainants had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, and certiorari lies.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The proper proceeding for relief from an interlocutory order as stated in Swift v. Smith, supra, is by certiorari. Later in Potashnik v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137, 138, this court, we think, intended to and did in fact remove all confusion as to procedure by carefully outlining the proper remedy as follows:
'* * * within the period of stay of execution granted by the trial court, the owners, not having the right of review of said interlocutory order upon writ of error, filed original action by way of certiorari in this court, alleging that otherwise they were without remedy whatsoever to protect their property from seizure under the order of the district court, which they contend was without lawful authority. * * *'
The court then went on to say, 126 Colo. at page 101, 247 P.2d at page 138:
Second: Is injunctive relief the proper remedy to be accorded a defendant in a proceeding in eminent domain?
This question is answered in the negative.
The law can be no more clearly stated than in Colorado Central Power Co. v. City of Englewood, 10 Cir., 89 F.2d 233, 235, wherein the United States Circuit Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, ETC. v. Bergland
...not render it immune from statutory regulation of the physical impact of such construction. See Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 195, 322 P.2d 1053, 1057 (1958), People of Lakewood v. Haase, 596 P.2d 392, 394 (Colo. 1979). In Town of Glendale the Colorado Suprem......
-
Lucas v. District Court of Pueblo County in Tenth Judicial Dist., 18859
...obtain relief by writ of error. The situation is analogous to that which was presented to this Court in Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053, 1055, wherein it was held in an eminent domain proceeding that writ of error would not issue to review an inte......
-
Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation, Inc. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority
...Colorado Springs v. Crumb, 148 Colo. 32, 364 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,......
-
City of Canon City v. Merris
... ... An appeal was taken to the County Court of Fremont County, and the issue tried de novo before a jury. A ... City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302, 29 P. 516, 519: ... '* * * It is needless to say that a ... both by the general law of the state and by the ordinances of the town wherein it was committed, constitutes two distinct and several offenses, ... ...
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...(1959). An appeal to review an interlocutory order of a district court may not be taken. Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053 (1958). Appeal dismissed if no final judgment. If it appears on review that there is no final judgment, the appeal will be dismi......
-
Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.
...(1959). An appeal to review an interlocutory order of a district court may not be taken. Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053 (1958). Appeal dismissed if no final judgment. If it appears on review that there is no final judgment, the appeal will be dismi......
-
Rule 106 FORMS OF WRITS ABOLISHED.
...certiorari, when directed to an endangered fundamentally substantive and substantial right. Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053 (1958). Prison board proceedings reviewable. This section is an authorization to test the legality of the prison board procee......
-
Chapter 16 - § 16.2 • LEGAL ISSUES AS TO RIGHT TO CONDEMN
...Ass'n v. Cummins, 728 P.2d 696 (Colo. 1986); Swift v. Smith, 201 P.2d 609, 610 (Colo. 1948); Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 322 P.2d 1053, 1054 (Colo. 1958); Larson v. Chase Pipe Line Co., 514 P.2d 1316, 1317 (Colo. 1973); Arizona-Colorado Land & Cattle Co. v. Dist. Court, 511......