Legal Opinion

Hunker v. Veeder

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1927No. 3245Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OP THE COURT

PARKER, C. J.

A motion to dismiss the appeal in this ease has been filed, based upon various grounds, only one of which need be noticed. Neither a supersedeas bond nor a cost bond has been filed, although the time within which the same was required by chapter 43, Laws of 1917, has long since expired. Under our previous decisions, this is fatal to the appeal. See Abo Land Co. v. Dunlavy, 27 N. M. 202, 199 P. 479; Hernandez v. Roberts, 24 N. M. 253, 173 P. 1034; Hubert v. American Surety Co., 25 N. M. 131, 177 P. 889.

It appears that appellant was a party to the proceeding…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. RobertsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Hubert v. American Surety Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Abo Land Co. v. DunlavyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Baca v. WintersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API