People v. District Court of Fourth District
The People ex rel. v. District Court of Fourth District
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Opinion by Mr. Justice Denison.
The plaintiffs, MacLaren et al., brought suit in the District Court of El Paso County against the Board of Directors of School District No. 1, Mesa County, to recover a balance for services rendered by them, as architects, in preparing plans and specifications, and superintending the building of a school house. The defendant moved for a change of venue, the motion was denied and defendant then obtained from this court an order upon the District Court to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue; A motion to quash the order to show cause was denied and the relator now moves for judgment of prohibition on the pleadings.
If the motion for change was well founded and no question of fact was open, the District Court had no jurisdiction except to grant the motion.
Since the defendant must be classed as a resident of Mesa County and was served there, the case must, by the terms of the code, be tried there, unless it comes within one of the exceptions provided in that act. Code 1908, § 29.
It is claimed that the contract was “to be performed” in El Paso County, and that, therefore, the case is within the exception concerning place of performance, but that exception applies only to a contract which by its own terms is to be performed at a certain place. Brewer v. Gordon, 27 Colo. Ill. 111, 113-114.
The contract in this case contains no provision as to the place of payment and no express provision as to the place of performance on the part of the plaintiff; though there *332 is a necessary implication that superintendence and inspection should be performed in Mesa County.
Decided May 5, A. D. 1919. Rehearing denied July 7, A. D. 1919.
Without deciding, therefore, whether, in a case like the present, it would be the place of payment or the place of performance of the rest of the contract that would determine the venue, we are compelled upon this record to say that the only proper place of trial is Mesa County.
The motion for a writ of prohibition upon the pleadings should be granted.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.