Court Opinion

ID: 9532171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:18:49.516163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:41.704655
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
Originally, I concurred in an opinion affirming the judgment. On further consideration, however, I am-constrained to believe that I proceeded in error. First of all, as seems clear, the trial court, proceeding thereto notwithstanding -the pleadings tendered a material issue of fact for determination, erroneously granted a motion interposed by defendant in error for judgment on the pleadings. That alone, as I conceive, should move us to order reversal of the judgment. See, Neuhaus v. Colorado Herald Publishing Co., 112 Colo. 371, 149 P; (2d) 656, and cases cited there. Moreover, as my present *518study convinces, the remedy invoked by defendant in error (forcible detainer), does not lend itself readily to judicial inquiry relative to the claim of plaintiffs in error to recover the value of property identified as “annexations to the land,” of which, as said, the judgment below worked deprivation in a large sum.
I would reverse the judgment, and suggest to the parties that they consider with the trial court the possibility of so broadening the issues that the claim of plaintiffs in error to the property mentioned may be tried, and, if resolved favorably, the value thereof judicially ascertained and adjudged. Failing which—and the difficulty necessarily to attend any effort to engraft the issue invoked in a forcible detainer action is not of easy solution—the case should be dismissed without prejudice, and defendant in error relegated to an action in condemnation, a remedy necessarily not so restricted.