Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Original proceeding for mandamus. Upon the petition presented, an alternative writ issued by order of the court. The matters averred in respondent’s return thereto constitute, in legal effect, a special demurrer, and in ordinary actions would doubtless be-pleaded as such. All facts essential to a correct understanding of the opinion are sufficiently stated therein.
1Opinion of the CourtHelm, J.
The authority of this court to entertain the original proceeding before us is vigorously challenged by counsel for the respondent company'. This objection gives rise to the most perplexing question now presented for adjudication.
Sections 2 and 3, article 6, of the state constitution read as follows:
“Sec. 2. The supreme court, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall have appellate jurisdic- ' diction only, which shall be co-extensive with the state, and shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts, under such regulations and limitations as may be…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Attorney General v. City of Eau ClaireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- State ex rel. Wood v. BakerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Brewster v. ArnoldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1853
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- State ex rel. Lamb v. CunninghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Whiteside v. First Judicial District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1900
- State ex rel. Moore v. ArchibaldNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- State v. Nelson CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- State Ex Rel. Howard v. Oklahoma Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.