mere personal privilege in Colorado

1980The general rule as to venue is as stated in Slinkard v. Jordan, 131 Colo. 144 , 279 P.2d 1054 (1955): “ ‘The right to have the place of trial changed because the action is brought in an improper County is not jurisdictional, but a mere personal privilege....’” When, as here, the action was brought in an improper county, venue can be changed on motion.

1980The general rule as to venue is as stated in Slinkard v. Jordan, 131 Colo. 144 , 279 P.2d 1054 (1955): “ ‘The right to have the place of trial changed because the action is brought in an improper County is not jurisdictional, but a mere personal privilege....’” When, as here, the action was brought in an improper county, venue can be changed on motion.

1955Turning again to the applicability of the rule as specifically pertaining to cases arising in courts of justices of the peace, the last pronouncement on the subject by this Court appears to have been in 1942 in the case of Justice Court v. People, ex rel., 109 Colo. 287, 292 , 124 P. (2d) 934 , wherein we held that section 7 of chapter 96, ’35 C.S.A. (cited herein as C.R.S. ’53, 79-5-2), confers county-wide jurisdiction on courts of justices of *150 the peace in the various proceedings enumerated where the amount involved is not in excess of $300, and that section 14 of said chapter (cited her

1955Turning again to the applicability of the rule as specifically pertaining to cases arising in courts of justices of the peace, the last pronouncement on the subject by this Court appears to have been in 1942 in the case of Justice Court v. People, ex rel., 109 Colo. 287, 292 , 124 P. (2d) 934 , wherein we held that section 7 of chapter 96, ’35 C.S.A. (cited herein as C.R.S. ’53, 79-5-2), confers county-wide jurisdiction on courts of justices of *150 the peace in the various proceedings enumerated where the amount involved is not in excess of $300, and that section 14 of said chapter (cited her

1942Denver Co. v. Roberts, supra. The bringing of an action in the improper precinct is not a fatal jurisdictional defect where the justice of peace court, as in the case at bar, has general jurisdiction of the subject matter under section 7,’ chapter 96, ’35 C.S.A., which confers countrywide jurisdiction in various kinds of proceedings, including actions on contract where the amount involved does not exceed $300.00, and section 14 fixing the venue in the precinct of the debtor’s residence confers a mere personal privilege which may be. waived by his failure to claim it in the justice of peace cou

1942Denver Co. *Page 292 v. Roberts, supra. The bringing of an action in the improper precinct is not a fatal jurisdictional defect where the justice of peace court, as in the case at bar, has general jurisdiction of the subject matter under section 7, chapter 96, '35 C.S.A., which confers countrywide jurisdiction in various kinds of proceedings, including actions on contract where the amount involved does not exceed $300.00, and section 14 fixing the venue in the precinct of the debtor's residence confers a mere personal privilege which may be waived by his failure to claim it in the justice of p

1911In School District v. Waters, supra, it was said: “ ‘It may be stated as a general rule that the bringing of an action in an improper county is not a jurisdictional defect, where the court has general jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that the statutes fixing the venue in certain actions confer a mere personal privilege, which may be waived by a failure to claim it in the proper manner-and at the proper time.’ ” (Citing 22 Enc.