Opinion · Colorado Court Opinions

FIRST NAT'L. BANK v. DIST. CT., 164 Colo. 9 (1967)

First Nat’l Bank of Englewood as Guardian of the Est. of Robert H.Kornock, a minor, & as Adm’r, Adm’x of the Est. of Kenneth Kornock,Deceased v. Dist. Court in & for the County of Jefferson;Honorable Roscoe Pile, Judge; Denver Rio Grande W. R.R., aDelaware corporation., 432 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1967)

Type
Opinion
Court
Colorado Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Date
1967-10-02
Topic
general

FIRST NAT'L. BANK v. DIST. CT., 164 Colo. 9 (1967) (432 P.2d 1) The First National Bank of Englewood as Guardian of the Estate of Robert H.Kornock, a minor, and as Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Kornock,Deceased v. The District Court in and for the County of Jefferson;Honorable Roscoe Pile, Judge; Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad, aDelaware corporation.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FIRST NAT'L. BANK v. DIST. CT., 164 Colo. 9 (1967). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

FIRST NAT'L. BANK v. DIST. CT.,164 Colo. 9(1967)
(432 P.2d 1)
The First National Bank of Englewood as Guardian of the Estate of Robert H.
Kornock, a minor, and as Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Kornock,
Deceased v. The District Court in and for the County of Jefferson;
Honorable Roscoe Pile, Judge; Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad, a
Delaware corporation.
No. 22814.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided October 2, 1967.
Original proceeding. Rule to show cause issued.Rule Discharged.
1.APPEAL AND ERROR—Correction — Function — Writ.Correction of error is the function of a writ of error.
2.TRIAL—Decision — Right — Wrong.A trial court has the power to render a right as well as a wrong decision.
3.PROHIBITION—Court — Jurisdiction — Restrain — Conclusion —Propriety.Prohibition may never be used to restrain a trial court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter from proceeding to a final conclusion.
4.Court — Restrain — Error — Question — Writ.Prohibition may not be used to restrain a trial court from committing error in deciding a question properly before it; it may not be used in lieu of writ of error.
Original Proceeding.
Benjamin E. Sweet, Dyer and Swenson, for petitioner.Page 10

Ernest Porter, Kenneth D. Barrows, Donald D. Pfeifer, for respondents.
En Banc.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original proceeding.

[1-4] On the petition as presented we deemed it advisable to issue a rule to the respondent judge to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted. Upon receipt of the answer to the show cause order and the matter now being at issue, it is apparent from what now has been fully revealed as the problem involved, that the rule to show cause was improvidently issued and we should not have granted the petition. We have been favored with oral argument, and we now conclude that the rule should be discharged under the authority ofLeonhart v. District Court,138 Colo. 1,329 P.2d 781. We adopt therefrom this pertinent language:"* * * correction of error is the function of a writ of error. A trial court has the power to render a right as well as a wrong decision. 'Prohibition may never be used to restrain a trial court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter from proceeding to a final conclusion. Nor may it be used to restrain a trial court from committing error in deciding a question properly before it; it may not be used in lieu of a writ of error.'Prinster et al v. District Court, decided May 17, 1958,137 Colo. 393,325 P.2d 938."
The rule is discharged.Page 11