Court Opinion

ID: 9550971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:45:54.091307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:50.402586
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Mr. Justice Moore.
The case of Brothe v. Zaiss, 116 Colo. 472, 183 P. (2d) 561, while not cited in the briefs filed in this cause, is relied on in the briefs -presented in another action (Hoff v. Armbruster, 125 Colo. 323, 244 P. (2d) 1069, decided this date), involving a different phase of the dispute between these parties. The Brothe case is cited as authority for the proposition that the district court could not entertain the action for the reason that the county court had exclusive power to determine the validity of the alleged contract for mutual wills under its original jurisdiction in matters of probate and settlement of the estates of deceased persons.
Brothe v. Zaiss, supra, was an action to foreclose a mortgage. The surviving widow of the mortgagor was named defendant in her capacity as administratrix and as an heir at law. She contested the validity of the mortgage on five separate and distinct grounds and presented four counterclaims. For answer to these counterclaims plaintiffs alleged that an antenuptial marriage contract prevented a recovery thereon. The facts shown by the opinion in that case are much involved and there is little similarity between them and those disclosed by *209the record now considered. If that opinion, as applied to the facts there considered, contains any language not consistent with our conclusion herein, to that extent Brothe v. Zaiss, supra, is overruled.
Mr. Justice Alter formerly concurring now dissents.