proceedings error in Colorado

1904Powell on Appellate Proceedings, 121, § 12a, and authorities cited. * * * To sustain the appellant’s objection, and hold that we are without power to institute such inquiry, is equivalent to saying that the supreme court of Colorado is without power to determine a question pertaining to its own jurisdiction. ’ ’ Coe v. Waters, 16 Colo. App. 311, is a recognition of the jurisdiction of this court, to determine the force and effect of a discharge in bankruptcy pending an appeal.

1904Powell on Appellate Proceedings, 121, § 12a, and authorities cited. * * * To sustain the appellant’s objection, and hold that we are without power to institute such inquiry, is equivalent to saying that the supreme court of Colorado is without power to determine a question pertaining to its own jurisdiction. ’ ’ Coe v. Waters, 16 Colo. App. 311, is a recognition of the jurisdiction of this court, to determine the force and effect of a discharge in bankruptcy pending an appeal.

1904Decisive of this question is Atkinson v. Tabor, 7 Colo. 195, where it is said : “Matters may occur subsequent to judgment which operate to waive the right of a party to have the judgment reviewed on appeal or upon writ of error. 'When such matters appear of record the objection is properly raised by a motion to dismiss; but when they do not so appear, the objection must be raised by a plea in bar of the proceedings in error.

1904Decisive of this question is Atkinson v. Tabor, 7 Colo. 195, where it is said : “Matters may occur subsequent to judgment which operate to waive the right of a party to have the judgment reviewed on appeal or upon writ of error. 'When such matters appear of record the objection is properly raised by a motion to dismiss; but when they do not so appear, the objection must be raised by a plea in bar of the proceedings in error.

2024Id. (holding that even though engaging in good faith negotiations with a landowner is required before a city can bring petition for condemnation , a city’s failure to negotiate in good faith doesn’t affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction); § 38-1-105(1) (The “court shall hear proofs and allegations of all parties inte rested touching the regularity of the proceedings and shall rule u pon all objections thereto. ” ). 9 ¶ 22 Likewise, the district court ’s subject matter jurisdiction isn’t affect ed by the City’s purported lack of authority to condemn the property.

2024Id. (holding that even though engaging in good faith negotiations with a landowner is required before a city can bring petition for condemnation, a city’s failure to negotiate in good faith doesn’t affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction); § 38-1-105(1) (The “court shall hear proofs and allegations of all parties interested touching the regularity of the proceedings and shall rule upon all objections thereto.”). 8 ¶ 22 Likewise, the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction isn’t affected by the City’s purported lack of authority to condemn the property.

1963When such matters appear of record, the objection is properly raised by a motion to dismiss; but when they do not so appear, the objection must be raised by a plea in bar of the proceedings in error.” " ' *435 The same rule was again cited in Burns v. National Co., 47 Colo. 557 , 108 Pac. 330 (1910).

1960Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 95 Colo. 435 , 37 P. (2d) 761 .

1960Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 95 Colo. 435 , 37 P. (2d) 761 .