Title: United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. District Court
Citation: 353 P.2d 1093
Docket Number: 19385
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 1960

353 P.2d 1093 (1960) UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Joseph E. Cook, Gustave Markowski, Jr. and Janette Markowski, Defendants. No. 19385. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. July 11, 1960. Duane O. Littell, James E. Algeo, Denver, for plaintiff. Smith, Pyle, Johnson &amp; Makris, Denver, for defendants. KNAUSS, Justice. This is an original proceeding in this court in which plaintiff seeks a writ in the nature of prohibition to bar further action on the part of the trial court. Plaintiff was summoned as garnishee in proceedings under a judgment rendered against John J. Shea, operator of an automobile, for damages in an action brought by the Markowskis as a result of an automobile accident in which the Markowskis were injured. In the original action service was made on Shea pursuant to C.R.S. '53, 13-8-2 by delivering a copy of the summons to the Secretary of State of Colorado. No appearance was entered therein by Shea and in due course judgment was entered against him for $15,000. Plaintiff filed an answer to the garnishee summons, which, however, does not appear in the record before us. It also moved to dismiss the proceedings below under Rule 103, R.C.P. Colo. for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that Shea was a resident of Colorado at the time of the accident upon which the Markowski action was based, hence the statute has no application. In support of this motion plaintiff filed Shea's affidavit, which states: Later Shea's deposition was taken in which it appears that he had been on Lowry Air Force Base for about ten months; that he was a single man and lived at all times on the base; that he took his meals there and had returned to his home in Connecticut immediately after his discharge from military service. The accident occurred in April, 1954 and shortly thereafter Shea was transferred to Walker Air Force Base in Roswell, N. M. where he remained until September 1955, when his *1094 military service was terminated. Shea's deposition shows that he owned no property in Colorado; engaged in no employment other than his military service; had no Colorado automobile driver's license, and that upon leaving Lowry Air Force Base he did not return to Colorado. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction was overruled, and it institutes this proceeding under Rule 106, R.C.P. Colo. alleging that the trial court is proceeding without jurisdiction. The sole question presented iswas there sufficient evidence before the trial court to support its finding that John J. Shea was a nonresident of Colorado at the time of the accident? C.R.S. `53, 13-8-1 defines a non-resident "to be any natural person * * * not residing within the state." Subsequent sections of the same Chapter provide for substituted service on a non-resident who is involved in an automobile accident within this state. A leading case is United Services Automobile Association v. Harman, Tex.Civ. App., 151 S.W.2d 609, 611, where it is stated: See, also, Teague v. District Court, 4 Utah 2d 147, 289 P.2d 331, 53 A.L.R.2d 1159. By C.R.S. '53, 142-1-35 the General Assembly ceded jurisdiction over Lowry Air Force Base to the United States. To paraphrase the United Services case, Shea did not usually sleep at night in any territory belonging to the State of Colorado, but upon a military reservation under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The typical case which the statute is apparently designed to meet is where the defendant is only transiently operating a motor vehicle on the Colorado highways, although by its terms it is not limited to one making a continuous journey through the State, but covers any case where a nonresident, operating a motor vehicle in this State, causes damage. Upon the evidence submitted to the trial court it found that Shea was a nonresident of Colorado at the time of the accident, and there is ample competent evidence to sustain this finding. We cannot interfere with a finding so supported. The rule is discharged. DAY, J., not participating.