Court Opinion

ID: 9865274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:29:57.502952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:16.003186
License: Public Domain

*78Mr. Chief Justice Francis E. Bouck
specially concurring.
In the reversal I concur. However, in view of the issues presented, showing that the plaintiff Cox was claiming to be the landlord of Godec, and under numerous previous decisions of this court, the title is not here involved within the meaning of section 25 of article VI of the Constitution of Colorado. The district court, to which the justice of the peace had certified the case in the belief that the title was necessarily involved, ought to have remanded the case to the justice for trial by him on the merits. Certification to the district court was justified neither under ’35 C. S. A., volume 3, chapter 96, section 12, nor under ’35 C. S. A., volume 3, chapter 70, section 9. Klopfer v. Keller, 1 Colo. 410; Potts v. Magnes, 17 Colo. 364, 30 Pac. 58; Hamill v. Bank of Clear Creek County, 22 Colo. 384, 45 Pac. 411; Wise v. Schimmel, 76 Colo. 184, 230 Pac. 786; West v. Judd, 103 Colo. 432, 86 P. (2d) 1081.