Velasques v. Zimmerman

• Citation: 30 Colo. 355,70 P. 419
• Parties: VELASQUES et al. v. ZIMMERMAN et al.
• Decision Date: 06 October 1902
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

70 P. 419

30 Colo. 355

VELASQUES et al. v. ZIMMERMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Colorado

October 6, 1902

Error to Archuleta county court.

Proceedings by Pablo Velasques and others against J. W. Zimmerman and others to review the validity of proceedings for the incorporation of the town of Pagosa Junction. From the judgment, Velasques and others bring error. Dismissed.

I. B Melville and Ponsford & Sheldon, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles A. Merriman, for defendants in error.

STEELE J.

Certain of the inhabitants of Archuleta county, desirous of being incorporated into an incorporated town, to be known as 'Pagosa Junction,' filed their petition in the county court of said county. The petition was signed by 39 persons who represented that they were the owners of, or bad interests in, the territory described in the petition. Accompanying the petition was a map of the territory proposed to be embraced within the limits of the town. On the day the petition was filed, the county judge appointed 5 persons to act as commissioners, as provided by the statute. In an affidavit filed with the petition it is alleged that there are at least 300 bona fide residents and inhabitants of the territory proposed to be included within the limits of the town. The election was held January 3, 1901; resulting, as is shown by the certificate of the commissioners, in a vote of 48 for and 8 against incorporation. Thereafter objections were made and, by stipulation between the parties, no further steps were taken until January 15, 1901. On that day a hearing was had upon the objections filed, and testimony was taken. From the testimony it appears that the territory sought to be embraced within the limits of the town was not owned by the persons signing the petition for incorporation, that a portion of the land had been allotted by the government to certain Indians, and that other portions were covered by homestead entries. The objections were overruled, and the objectors bring the case here by writ of error. The persons filing the objections are made plaintiffs in error, and the commissioners appointed by the court are made defendants in error.

Counsel contend that section 4364, 3 Mills' Ann. St., requires that the petition shall be signed by landowners, and that no other person is entitled to petition the county court for the incorporation of a town, and that, unless it appears from the petition itself that 30 landowners are...