From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SMITH v. KAPICH ET AL

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jan 20, 1928
263 P. 510 (N.M. 1928)

Opinion

No. 3285.

December 31, 1927. Rehearing Denied January 20, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Colfax County; Kiker, Judge.

L.S. Wilson, of Raton, for appellant.

J. Leahy, of Raton, for appellee.


OPINION OF THE COURT


A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed by appellee, based upon the proposition that the praecipe for the transcript of record calls for a partial record, and the praecipe contains no statement of the questions sought to be reviewed.

The praecipe in the case at bar calls for only such matters as affect the National Cash Register Company's petition and intervention, and names eight record entries to be certified. The record here filed clearly discloses that the praecipe only called for a partial record. The praecipe does not contain a statement of the questions sought to be reviewed.

This question was directly passed upon by this court in the following cases: Southern Surety Co. v. Colburn, 32 N.M. 243, 255 P. 405; Norment et ux. v. Mardorf et al., 26 N.M. 210, 190 P. 733; Savage v. Nesteroff, 31 N.M. 88, 240 P. 987. In these cases the court held that a failure to state in the praecipe the questions desired to be reviewed, when perfecting appeal under section 32, c. 43, Laws of 1917, presented nothing for this court to decide.

Appellee's motion to dismiss appeal is therefore sustained, and the appeal is hereby dismissed, and, it is so ordered.

BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

SMITH v. KAPICH ET AL

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jan 20, 1928
263 P. 510 (N.M. 1928)
Case details for

SMITH v. KAPICH ET AL

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v. KAPICH et al

Court:Supreme Court of New Mexico

Date published: Jan 20, 1928

Citations

263 P. 510 (N.M. 1928)
263 P. 510

Citing Cases

Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Smith

Since the alleged deficiencies of the record have been supplied at the instance of appellee, we see no…