Dame v. Cochiti Reduction & Improvement Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before B. S. Baker, Associate Justice. The complaint was filed February 28, 1903. The bond, a copy of which is made a part of the complaint, states positively that it is due April 1, 1904. It is nowhere alleged in the complaint that there is in the bonds, or in the trust deed securing the payment of said bonds, any provision whereby the principal becomes due upon default in the payment of the coupons, and the allegation…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before B. S. Baker, Associate Justice. The complaint was filed February 28, 1903. The bond, a copy of which is made a part of the complaint, states positively that it is due April 1, 1904. It is nowhere alleged in the complaint that there is in the bonds, or in the trust deed securing the payment of said bonds, any provision whereby the principal becomes due upon default in the payment of the coupons, and the allegation “that both principal and interest on said bonds is now due and payable,” is a mere conclusion of law, not admitted by…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OE THE COURT.
POPE, J.
1 The ground specifically urged in the court below as well as in this court, for vacating the judgment is, that the court erred in rendering judgment for principal and attorney’s fees, for the reason that the complaint as to these items sets forth no cause of action. If this contention is supported by the record the cause must be reversed, for no rule is more clearly recognized than that no valid judgment by default can be rendered upon a complaint that states no cause of action. Upon appeal, the. complaint is to be tested as upon demurrer, and if it would have…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Hall v. JacksonTexas Supreme Court · 1848
- Cragin v. LovellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- McAllister v. KuhnSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- International Harvester Co. of America v. CameronSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- State Ex Rel. Stanley v. LujanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1939
- Leforce v. HaymesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Cutter Flying Service, Inc. v. Straughan Chevrolet, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.