Goodman v. City of Ft. Collins

Citations

• 164 F. 970
• 91 C.C.A. 98
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703

Syllabus

<p>1. Eminent Domain (§ 194*) — Colorado Statute — Pleadings—Jurisdictional Allegations — Amendment.</p> <p>In condemnation proceedings in the county courts of Colorado under the statute of that state, the complaint, if wanting in the requisite jurisdictional allegations, is not entirely void but amendable, and the requisite amendment, if allowed and made, relates back to the time of filing the complaint.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. § 523; Dec. Dig. § 194.*)</p> <p>2. Process (§ 66*) — Process upon Defective Complaint.</p> <p>A summons Which is otherwise duly issued and served, is not void merely because it is issued upon a complaint which is wanting in the requisite jurisdictional allegations — the same being amendable — or because a copy of the defective complaint is attached to the summons as issued and served.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Process, Cent. Dig. § 53; Dec. Dig. § 66.*]</p> <p>3. Process (§ 68*) — Personal Service is Equivalent oe Appearance.</p> <p>Due personal service of a summons brings a respondent before the court for all purposes of the proceeding as fully as would a voluntary appearance.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Process, Dec.. Dig. § 68.*]</p> <p>4. Process (§ 6*) — Amended Complaint — New Process not Required.</p> <p>When respondents have been brought under the jurisdiction of the court by proper service of process, the jurisdiction over them is not lost by an amendment of the complaint whereby a necessary jurisdictional allegation is inserted in it. The amendment is not the institution of a new proceeding, and creates no occasion for the issuance of a new summons or like process.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Process, Cent. Dig. § 5; Dec. Dig. § 6.*]</p> <p>5. Judgment (§ 503*) — Collateral Attack — Mere Error Not Sufficient.</p> <p>A judgment is not open to collateral attack merely because there may have been an abuse of discretion in the exercise of a lawful pow