Bagnall v. Orell

New Mexico Supreme Court

Bagnall v. Orell

222 P. 934, 29 N.M. 398

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1924

DocketNo. 2798

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 P. 934 (Bagnall v. Orell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bagnall v. Orell, 222 P. 934, 29 N.M. 398 (N.M. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT.

PARKER, C. J.

This cause is before the court on motion for rehearing. We had theretofore sustained a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record, and had denied an application for a writ of certiorari filed by appellant without filing an opinion. We are entirely satisfied with the disposition heretofore made of the case. The bill of exceptions is not certified to by the clerk and the application for the writ of certiorari was not filed for nearly a year after the transcripts were filed and at least four months subsequent to the filing of briefs on the merits by counsel for appellant. We could not recede from the action formerly taken without overturning many cases heretofore decided by the court, in which we have developed the appellate practice and procedure in this court.

A motion to affirm the judgment has been filed by appellee upon the ground that the assignment of errors relates solely to matters .appearing in the bill of exceptions, which has been stricken, and no error appears upon the face of the record proper. This motion will be sustained. Ojo del Espiritu Santo Co. v. Baca, 28 N. M. 516, 214 Pac. 771.

It follows from the foregoing that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed and the cause remanded, with directions to enforce the judgment against the appellant and the sureties upon his super-sedeas bond, and it is so ordered.

BRATTON and BOTTS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OP THE COURT.

PARKER, C. J.

This cause is before the court on motion for rehearing. We had theretofore sustained a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record, and had denied an application for a writ of certiorari filed by appellant without filing an opinion. We are entirely satisfied with the disposition heretofore made of the case. The bill of exceptions is not certified to by the clerk and the application for the writ of certiorari was not filed for nearly a year after the transcripts were filed and at least four months subsequent to the filing of briefs on the merits by counsel for appellant. We could not recede from the action formerly taken without overturning many cases heretofore decided by the court, in which we have developed the appellate practice and procedure in this court.

A motion to affirm the judgment has been filed by appellee upon the ground that the assignment of errors relates solely to matters .appearing in the bill of exceptions, which has been stricken, and no error appears upon the face of the record proper. This motion will be sustained. Ojo del Espiritu Santo Co. v. Baca, 28 N. M. 516, 214 Pac. 771.

It follows from the foregoing that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed and the cause remanded, with directions to enforce the judgment against the appellant and the sureties upon his super-sedeas bond, and it is so ordered.

BRATTON and BOTTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 P. 934, 29 N.M. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagnall-v-orell-nm-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack